'^^ 


JtA 


%^ 


■*--v*^ 


*1fe»' 


» 


'7 


y-y^ 


C5  <5 

PRINCETON.  N.  J. 


©  ?ort  o"  Ibe  » 

t       ADDISON  Al  ^'  lANDEP.  LIBRARY,      \ 

which  was  presented  by 


\l/            Messrs.  R.   j.  and  A.  Stuabt 
^  o^^  _.  ^   » 

«:w.s«'..°'>''*'°"--^-...~.l 

«)         »Sr/te7/;  Secti.n :^' 

f_^^^"^>/.-.  K.,..._ T 


A 

SERIES  OF  LETTERS 


02C    THE 

iapobe  antr  t>ub)ects  of  )5apttsm» 

ADDRESSED    TO    THE 

CHRISTIAN    PUBLIC. 

To  which  Is  prefixed, 

A      BRIEF     ACCOUNT     OF     THE     COMMENCEMENT     AND    PROGRESS 

OF    THE    author's     TRIAL     ON     THOSE     POINTS      WHICH 

TERMINATED      IN      HIS      EMBRACING     BELIEVERS* 

BAPTISM,     IN    A    LETTER    TO    A    FRIEND. 

©econti  OEliition* 

With  an 

APPENDIX, 

CbNTAINING 

STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE'S    REPLY. 


BY    STEPHEN    CHAPIN, 
Late  Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  Mont  Vernon,  n.h. 


PRINTED    AND   PUBLISHED    BY   LINCOLN    &    EDiMANDS, 

No.  53  Cornhill. 
1820. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  to  luii  : 

District  ClerPs  Office. 
Be  it  remembered,  Thai  on  the  twelfth  of  February,  A.  D. 
1819,  and  in  the  forty -third  year  of  the  Independence  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  Lincoln  &  Edmands  of  the  said  dis- 
trict have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right 
whereof  they  claim  as  Proprietors,  in  the  words  following,  to  ivit : 

'•  A  Series  of  Letters  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptism, 
Addressed  to  the  Christian  Public.  To  which  is  prefixed,  A 
brief  account  of  the  Commencement  and  Progress  of  the  Author's 
Trial  on  those  Points  which  terminated  in  his  embracing  Believ- 
ers' Baptism,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend.  By  Stephen  Chapin,late 
Pastor  of  the  Congregational  Church  in  Mont  Vernon,  N.  H." 

In  conformity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,'^ 
entitled,  **An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  secur- 
ing the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and 
Proprietors  of  such  Copies,  during  the  Times  therein  -mention- 
ed :"  and  also  to  an  Act  entitled,  "An  Act  supplementary  to  an 
Act,  entitled.  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by 
securing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors 
and  Proprietors  of  such  Copies  during  the  times  therein  mention- 
ed ;  and  extending  the  Benefits  thereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing, 
Engraving  and  Etching  Historical,  and  other  Prints.'* 

JOHN  W.  DAVIS, 

Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massackuaetts. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM 


INTRODUCTORY     LETTER. 

Beloved  Brethren  and  Friends, 

THE  subjects,  discussed  in  the  ensuing  Letters,  aie 
confessedly  of  very  serious  and  high  moment.  Respect- 
ing them,  a  diversity  of  opinions  has  been  cherished,  and 
a  controversy  has  been  protracted,  which  in  no  incon- 
siderable degree  has  agitated  the  church  of  God,  and  di- 
vided the  professed  followers  of  Christ.  That  the  de- 
bate may  speedily  close  in  the  triumphs  of  truth,  is  a  con- 
summation most  devoutly  to  be  wished.  All  the  dark- 
ness that  now  rests  on  these  and  other  topics  will,  we 
trust,  be  chased  away  by  the  splendours  of  the  millennial 
sun  ;  and  then  christians  of  every  name  and  country  will 
coalesce  in  one  immense  and  holy  kingdom,  in  which  there 
shall  be  nothing  to  hurt  or  destroy.  While  the  debate 
must  continue,  it  is  hoped  that  it  will  be  conducted  with 
ability,  and  in  a  spirit  truly  christian  and  benevolent.  I 
have  not,  my  brethren,  in  taking  up  iny  pen,  been  prompt- 
ed by  the  vAnity  that  I  could  shed  much  original  light  on 
the  subject  at  issue.  On  both  sides  of  the  question  the 
field  of  controversy  has  been  traversed  by  mighty  cham- 
pions, who  have  put  forth  all  their  energies,  and  have 
laid  the  word  of  God  and  the  records  of  the  church  under 
tribute,  to  bring  to  their  aid  the  whole  of  their  united 
strength.  Still,  however,  the  writer  believes  that  there 
are  adequate  motives  to  justify  this  appeal  to  the  public. 
His  recent  change  of  opinion  is  so  great  in  itself,  is  at- 
tended with  consequences  so  deeply  interesting,  and  is  so 
liable  to  misconstruction,  that  it  has  become  an  imperious 
duty  to  assign  to  the  world,  lully  and  explicitly,  the  rea- 
sons which  have  produced  this  change  of  sentiment  and 
practice.  After  you  shall  have  duly  examined  the  argu- 
ments, submitted  to  your  consideration,  you  will  be  the 


4  LETTER    TO    A    FRIEND. 

lied  with  much  satisfaction  on  this  antiquitj^  and 
general  prevalence  of  infant  baptism,  as  proof,  that 
it  must  be  apostolic.  But  now,  on  more  particular 
examination,  I  found  that  this  mode  of  reasoning 
would  prove  too  much  :  It  would  prove  the  divine 
right  of  infant  communion.  For  this  was  as  an- 
cient and  as  general,  as  infant  baptism.  The  fath- 
ers I  found  placed  both  on  the  same  ground,  and 
supported  both  by  the  same  process  of  argument. 
Saint  Austin  tells  us  that  the  church  lield,  that  both 
ordinances  were  saving  and  necessary  to  eternal 
life ;  and  on  the  ground  of  this  supposed  saving 
quality,  he  informs,  that  the  church  viewed  them 
both,  as  traditions  from  the  apostles.  In  the  same 
way  of  arguing  I  could  prove  the  divine  origin  of 
the  use  of  the  cross  in  baptism  ;  worshipping  with 
the  face  towards  tlie  east,  and  that  baptism  was  re- 
generation, he. 

My  attempt  now  was  to  meet  and  refute  this 
argument,  in  favour  of  infant  communion,  with- 
out invalidating  at  the  same  time  the  arguments 
in  support  of  infant  baptism.  But  on  trial 
1  found  that  my  attack  on  the  former  was  in  fact  an 
indiscriminate  warfare  on  both.  If  I  succeeded  in 
laying  to  rest  the  arguments  in  favour  of  infant  com- 
munion, I  pcrcei'^ed  that,  if  after  this,  a  Taylor  or 
a  Pierce  had  said,  sir,  where  now  are  your  proofs 
for  inflmt  baptism  ?  The  question,  I  confess,  would 
have  been  to  me  perfectly  confounding.  If  I  at- 
tempted  to  support  infant  sprinkling,  I  must  try 
to  reanimate  those  very  arguments,  which  I  had  but 
just  slain.  By  this  time  I  found  myself  pretty  deep- 
ly invohxxl,  and  for  relief  resorted  to  the  word  of 
God.  This  I  believed  was  an  infallible  guide. 
This  I  read  and  read  with  fastings,  and  I  hope  with 
daily  prayers  to  the  Father  of  light,  that  he  would 
mercifully  send  me  the  illuminating  and  guiding 
power  of  his  holy  Spirit.      I  first  confined  myself 


LETTER    TO    A    FRIEND.  5 

principally  to  the  New  Testament.     Here  I  found 
neither  precept  nor  example  for  infaht  baptism.    If 
the  apostles  and  primitive  teachers  were  all  Pedo- 
baptists,  they  inust  have  baptized  many  thousands 
of  children  and  infants  before  the  closing  of  the  can- 
on of  scripture.     And  it  struck  me  with  peculiar 
force,    that   all  the  inspired  penmen  should  have 
passed  over  all  those  countless  instances  of  infant 
baptism  in  the  most  profound  silence.      Circum- 
stances often  existed  peculiarly  calculated  to  elicit 
a  declaration  on  infant  baptism,  if  it  then  existed. 
Paul  and  Barnabas  might  have  said  to  those  Jews, 
who  wished  to  impose  circumcision^  on  the  chris- 
tians at  Antioch,^  you  know  very  well,  that^  these 
believers  and  their  children  have  been  baptized,  and 
baptism  we  all  know  is  come  in  lieu  of  this  bloody 
rite,  why  then  are  you  not  satisfied  with  the  sub- 
stitute ?  On  another  occasion  Paul  was  accused  of 
denying  infant  circumcision.     See  Acts  xxi.  21. 
Novv  to  me  it  appeared  truly  strange,  that  the  Apos- 
tle did  not  repel  this  charge  by  saying,  though  I 
have  not  circumcised  your  children,  yet  you  know 
that  I  have  bajDtized  them  as  a  substitution  for 
circumcision.     In  my  view  the  only  reason  why 
the  Apostle  did  not  exonerate  himself  from  this 
charge  by  pleading  infant  baptism  in  place  of  cir- 
cumcision is,  because  he  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
baptizing  infants.     I  read  with  particular  attention 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  resorted  to  all  those 
passages  with  which  I  used  to  defend  my  practice. 
But  upon  more  minute  investigation  of  them,  they 
seemed  to  fail  me.     How  or  by  what  process  of 
argument  these  passages  were  invalidated,  I  will 
not  now  relate. 

I  then  repaired  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  en- 
deavoured to  support  myself  by  arguments,  drawn 
from  the  law  of  circumcision.    But  if  this  law  were 


A  2 


b  LETTER    TO    A    PRIENfi. 

in  full  force,  I  thought  that  consistency  required 
me  to  observe  it  throughout.  If  I  obeyed  a  part, 
and  rejected  a  part,  I  ought  to  be  able  to  shew  ex- 
plicitly, when  and  where  the  rejected  clauses  were 
repealed,  and  thus  assign  the  reasons  why  I  omitted 
some  clauses  in  this  statute  and  obeyed  others. 
But  this  I  could  not  well  do.  In  short,  the  argu- 
ment from  circumcision  ruined  itself  by  proving  too 
iTiuch.  It  established  the  membership  of  servants 
and  of  unbelieving  wives,  as  well  the  church  mem- 
bership of  infants.  For  the  law  of  circumcision 
required,  that  ail  in  the  professor's  house,  capable 
of  receiving  that  rite,  should  be  circumcised.  _  Now 
an  unbelieving  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  maid-ser- 
vants of  a  christian  professor,  are  just  as  capable  of 
receiving  the  rite  of  baptism,  as  males.  Hence  by 
this  law  a  believing  man  must  not  only  have  his 
children  baptized,  but  all  his  servants,  and  even  his 
unbelieving  companion,  must  all  be  baptized  and 
made  members  of  the  church.  All  this  was  in  my 
view  the  legitimate  consequence  of  adhering  to  the 
law  of  circumcision,  as  the  rule  to  determine  the 
subjects  of  baptism. 

I  then  tried  the  law  of  proselyte  baptism.  This 
law,  if  it  existed  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  I  found 
was  but  human,  and  that  is  would  concltide  against 
the  perpetuity  of  christian  baptism.  Because  it  was 
administered  only  upon  those  of  the  family,  who 
were  in  existence,  when  they  passed  from  paganism 
to  Judaism.  All,  who  were  born  after  this  transit, 
were  not  baptized.  Hence  if  this  law  were  to  be 
our  rule,  then  as  soon  as  a  nation  or  a  family  become 
christian,  baptism  must  cease.  All  that  are  born 
after  this  event  must  not  submit  to  this  rite.  On 
this  principle  we  shall  ultimately  all  become  Qua- 
kers, and  maintain  that  there  is  nothing  but  spiritu- 
al baptism. 


LETTER    TO    A    FRIEND.  7 

Thus  the  gt'ounds,  on  \\  hich  I  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  lean,  gave  way.  I  began  to  fear,  that  iny 
inquiries  would  inevitably  terminate  in  the  relin- 
quishment of  Pedo-baptism.  The  prospect  of  a 
change  of  denomination  rose  full  in  view,  and  the 
greatness  of  the  change,  and  the  deeply  interesting 
consequences,  which  must  attend  it,  threvx'  me  in- 
to a  state  of  distress  which  I  can  command  no  lan- 
guage to  describe.  The  thought  of  leaving  a  belov- 
ed church  and  people,  and  of  losing  all  that  endear- 
ing religious  connection,  w^hich  I  had  long  enjoyed, 
filled  me  with  deep  anguish  of  soul,  and  wrung  from 
me.uiany  sighs  and  tears.  When  I  viewed  the  sub- 
ject in  a  temporal  point  of  light,  it  was  easy  to  see 
that  I  had  nothing  to  gain,  but  much  to  lose. 
Though  my  mode  of  reasoning  seemed  correct  and 
conclusive,  yet  I  suspected  that  there  was  some  un- 
detected -fallacy  in  the  argument.  I  therefore  re- 
solved not  to  be  precipitate.  I  concluded  however 
that  I  w^ould  suspend  infant  baptism,  till  I  could 
gain  farther  light. 

Not  long  after  this,  it  pleased  the  Lord  to 
pour  out  his  Spirit  upon  my  people  in  a  very 
remarkable  manner.  In  about  one  year,  more 
than  one  hundred  were  made  the  hopeful  subjects 
of  grace.  Seventy  seven  joined  the  church.  I'his 
season  has  laid  me  under  new  and  everlasting  obli- 
gations to  the  God  of  all  mercy.  At  once  I  drop- 
ped my  studies,  believing  the  conversion  of  sinners 
to  be  of  infinitely  greater  moment  than  the  externals 
of  religion.  During  the  attention,  my  mind  gradu- 
ally settled  back,  till  at  length  I  thought  it  my  duty 
to  resume  my  former  practice.  After  the  revival 
had  subsided,  I  resumed  my  inquiries,  because  I 
did  not  feel  all  that  solid  grouiid  to  support  myself, 
which  I  wished  to  feel  in  administering  the  ordi- 
nance.   With  calmness  and  leisure  I  pushed  my 


8  LETTER     TO    A    FRIEND. 

investigations  farther  than  ever.  I  endeavoured  to 
rally  all  the  arguments  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  then  with  carefulness  and  candor,  to  com- 
pare them,  that  I  might  see  on  which  side  the  scale 
preponderated.  The  result,  my  dear  brother,  you 
very  well  know ;  and  the  reasons  which  have  led  to 
this  my  change  of  denomination  you  may  learn,  if 
you  will  take  the  trouble  of  perusing  my  Series  of 
Letters  about  to  be  addressed  to  the  christian  pub- 
lic. 

I  am  yours,  &c. 

S.  CHAPIN. 

Mont  Vernon^  Jan,  15,  1819. 


LETTER  TO  A  FRIEND. 


Beloved  Brother, 

IN  one  of  our  late  interviews  you  expressed  a 
desire  that  I  should  give  you  a  brief  history  of  the 
origin  and  progress  of  those  conflicts  and  trials  of 
mind,  which  have  terminated  in  a  public  change  of 
denomination.  In  cpmpliance  with  this  request  I 
confess  I  feel  some  diificulty.^  I  could  easily  tell 
you,  that  my  trials  on  the  points  in  debate  were 
long  and  extremely  painful.  But  should  I  enter 
minutely  into  all  my  conflicts,  this  letter  would  be 
swelled  into  a  little  volume.  I  will  therefcre 
seize  and  remark  upon  a  few  of  the  most  promi- 
nent circumstances. 

A  little  more  than  two  years  ago  I  resolved  on  a 
revision  of  ecclesiastical  history.  In  the  progress 
of  my  reading,  my  attention  was  arrested,  respect- 
ing the  validity  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism,  drawn  from  ancient  history.  I  well  knew 
that  the  practice  was  ancient.  The  authors  of  the 
appendices  to  Moshiem's  history  tell  us*  that  just 
at  the  close  of  the  second  century,  infant  baptism 
and  sponsors  existed  in  the  church  among  the  new 
and  remarkable  occurrences.     Formerly  I  had  re- 

•  See  vol.  vi.  p.  194. 


10  chapin's  letters 

better  able  to  judge  whether  this  change  is  to  be  attribut- 
ed to  sinister  views,  or  to  the  conquering  power  of  truth. 
Those  who  are  acquainted  with  my  temporal  circum- 
stances, and  with  my  religious  connections,  will  be  slow  to 
ascribe  my  change  to  a  love  of  fame  or  wealth.  They 
will  be  more  likely  to  view  it,  as  the  fruit  of  a  pitiable 
delusion,  or  of  mental  imbecility. 

Should  you,  my  brethren,  conclude  to  examine  these 
sheets,  I  hope  you  will  bring  to  their  perusal  a  large 
share  of  the  spirit  of  the  noble  Bereans.  Investigate 
with  much  care  and  candor,  and  accompany  your  whole 
inquiries  with  frequent  and  fervent  prayer  to  the  Father 
of  light,  that  he  would  grant  you  the  illuminating  and 
guiding  influence  of  his  Holy  Spirit.  Whatever  you 
find  in  these  Letters,  that  will  not  endure  the  test  of 
God's  word,  you  are  bound  to  expunge.  But  that  which 
is  supported  by  divine  truth,  you  cannot  reject  with  im- 
punity. 

.  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  II. 

ON  THE   NATURE   AND   IMPORTANCE   OF   POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS. 

Beloved  Friends, 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  main  objects  in  view,  it  will  be 
proper  at  this  stage,  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  na- 
ture and  importance  of  positive  institutions. 

Positive  institutions  are  not  discoverable  by  the  light 
of  nature ;  but  are  purely  matters  of  revelation.  All 
that  we  can  know  of  them  must  be  gained  exclusively  from 
the  revealed  will  of  God.  These  institutions,  under  the 
ancient  economy,  were  numerous  and  burdensome,  and 
the  exact  observance  of  them  was  enforced  by  the  most 
tremendous  sanctions.  Neglect  to  sprinkle  the  posts  of 
the  door  with  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be 
visited  with  the  death  of  the  first  born  of  every  such  pre- 
sumptuous family.  Uzzah  broke  a  positive  law  when, 
with  seemingly  pious  concern,  he  attempted  to  steady 
the  tottering  ark  of  God,  and  for  this  temerity  he  fell 
a  victim  to  the  jealousy  of  Heaven.  If  such  exemplary 
vengeance  were  inflicted  on  those,  who  omitted  or  cor- 
rupted any  of  those  numerous,  difficult  and  complicated 


ON    BAPTISM.  11 

ceremonies  under  the  Mosaic  law,  can  we  then  innocent- 
ly drop,  or  change,  or  corrupt  any  of  the  few  and  simple 
and  easy  institutions  of  the  new  dispensation  ?  Among  the 
ceremonies  of  the  gospel  church,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  hold  the  first  rank.  These  symbols  are  pre- 
eminently calculated  to  refresh  our  memories,  to  move 
our  affections,  and  to  teach  us  that  from  Christ  we  derive 
pardon  and  spiritual  life,  and  that  with  him  we  have  fel- 
lowship in  his  sufferings,  burial  and  resurrection.  Since 
Christ  designed  that  these  rites  should  thus  act  on  our 
passions,  and  convey  to  us  this  important  instruction,  we 
may  be  quite  sure  that  he  instructed  his  disciples  by  pre- 
cept and  example  how  these  institutions  should  be  ob- 
served. Of  this  opinion  was  bishop  Hoadly,  who  says, 
"  All  positive  duties  depend  entirely  upon  the  will  and  dec- 
laration of  the  person  who  institutes  or  ordains  them, 
with  respect  to  the  real  design  and  €7id  of  them,  and  con- 
sequently to  the  due  manner  of  performing  them."  Speak- 
ing of  the  Lord's  supper,  he  says,  "  It  cannot  be  doubted 
Jesus  Christ  sufficiently  declared  to  his  first  and  imme- 
dial?e  followers  the  whole  of  what  he  designed  should  be 
understood  by,  or  implied  in,  this  duty ;  for  this  being  a 
positive  institution,  depending  entirely  upon  his  will,  and 
not  designed  to  contain  any  thing  in  it,  but  he  himself 
should  please  to  affix  to  it,  it  must  follow  that  he  declared 
his  mind  about  it  fully  and  plainly ;  because,  otherwise,  he 
must  be  supposed  to  institute  a  duty,  of  which  no  one 
could  have  any  notion  without  his  instruction,  and  at  the 
same  time  not  to  instruct  his  followers  sufficiently  what 
that  duty  was  to  be."* 

His  lordship  has  here  expressed  truths  which  are 
equally  applicable  to  baptism,  and  which  no  one  can  easi- 
ly refute. 

Bishop  Taylor  is  of  the  same  opinion.  His  words  are, 
*'  All  institutions,  sacramental  and  positive  laws,  depend 
wholly  on  the  will  of  the  law-giver,  and  the  will  of  the 
supreme,  being  actually  limited  to  this  specification,  this 
manner,  this  matter,  this  institution  :  whatsoever  comes 
besides,  it  hath  no  foundation  in  the  will  of  the  legislator, 
and  therefore  can  have  no  warrant  or  authority.  That 
it  be  obeyed  or  not  obeyed  is  all  the  question  and  all  the 
variety,     if  it  can  be  obeyed,  it  must ;  if  it  cannot,  it  must 

*  Sec  his  True  Account,  &c. 


12  chapin's  letters 

be  let  alone.  He  that  does  any  thing  of  his  own  head.' 
either  must  be  a  despiser  of  God's  will,  or  must  suppose 
himself  the  author  of  a  grace,  or  else  to  do  nothing  at 
all,  in  what  he  does,  because  all  his  obedience,  and  all  the 
blessings  of  his  obedience,  depend  upon  the  will  of  God, 
which  ought  always  to  be  obeyed  when  it  can,  and  when 
it  cannot,  nothing  can  supply  it,"  because  the  will  of  the 
lawgiver  is  all  the  reason  for  obedience.* 

Positive  institutions  were  designed  to  furnish  a  more 
sure  test  of  love  and  implicit  obedience  to  God,  than 
moral  precepts,  because,  in  observing  the  latter,  our  obe- 
dience is  enforced  by  a  discovery  of  the  fitness  and  re- 
lation of  things;  but  in  keeping  the  former,  the  great 
motive  is  the  arbitrary  will  of  God. 

Let  us,  then,  my  brethren,  repair  to  the  word  of  God, 
and  gather  all  our  motives,  and  all  our  measures  for  obe- 
dience from  that  infallible  source.  With  the  due  obser- 
vance of  the  few  and  simple  institutes  of  the  new  dispen- 
sation, the  peace,  the  purity,  and  the  prosperity  of  Zion 
are  inseparably  connected.  Says  Dr.  Emmcns,  "  Though 
the  instituted  forms  of  religion  maybe  maintained  with- 
out maintaining  religion  itself;  yet  religion  itself  cannot 
be  maintained  without  maintaining  its  instituted  forms. 
The  enemies  of  the  Jewish  church  gained  their  greatest 
advantage  against  it,  by  attacking  its  sacred  rites  and 
ceremonies ;  and  those  who  have  corrupted  christian  in- 
stitutions have  done  the  greatest  injury  to  the  christian 
church.  Christ  has  been  most  deeply  wounded  in  the 
house  of  his  friends,  who  have  either  neglected,  pervert- 
ed, or  corrupted  his  holy  ordinances.  The  whole  his- 
tory of  the  church  of  God  teaches  us,  that  if  we  suffer 
the  sabbath,  the  sacraments,  and  the  positive  duties  of  re- 
ligion, to  be  neglected,  perverted  or  corrupted,  we  shall 
certainly  find  that  Christianity  will  die  in  our  hands.  This 
is  a  solemn  consideration  which  ought  to  awaken  the 
warmest  zeal  in  the  breasts  of  all  christians  to  maintain 
the  purity  of  all  divine  institutions."! 

I  am,  dear  Friends,  yours,  &c. 


♦Ductor  Dubltantium.  Bonk  2.  ch  iii. 
f  See  his  Sermons  on  various  and  Important  subjects,  pp.  247,248, 


ON     BAPTISM.  13 


LETTER  III. 

THE  SEVERAL  CLASSES    OF  PEDOBAPTISTS,    AND  THE  POINTS  OF 
DEBATE  RESPECTING  THE  MODE  SPECIFIED. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

Among  those  who  hold  to  water  baptism  there  is  a 
diversity  of  opinion  respecting  its  outward  administration. 
The  Pedobaptists  may  be  divided  into  three  general 
classes.  I.  A  very  considerable  portion  of  them,  and 
that  too  of  the  most  enlightened  and  candid,  and  who  are 
the  most  deeply  read  in  this  controversy,  grant  that  the 
word  baptizo^  principally  used  to  express  the  action  of 
baptism,  means,  in  its  primary  aad  most  obvious  sense, 
immersion.  They  admit  that  John  immersed,  that  Christ 
was  immersed,  and  that  his  disciples  before  and  after  his 
death  immersed.  Yea,  they  grant  that  all  the  primitive 
christians,  and  the  whole  church  of  God,  for  more  thaa 
thirteen  hundred  years,  practised  immersion,  and  that 
too  without  exception  of  countries,  whether  hot  or  cold. 
They  tell  us,  however,  that  sprinkling  was  allowed  ia 
cases  of  necessity.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  third  and  fourth 
centuries  the  church  began  to  maintain  the  necessity  of 
baptism,  and  that  all  who  received  it  were  sure  of  sal- 
vation, while  those  who  were  not  baptized  were  inevi- 
tably lost.  When  they  had  embraced  this  error,  they 
began  in  cases  of  imminent  danger  of  death,  to  apply 
water  by  pouring  it  from  head  to  foot  upon  the  sick  and 
dying,  who  were  too  weak  to  bear  immersion.  This  ap- 
plication, they  confessed,  was  not  the  instituted  baptism, 
yet  they  hoped  that  it  would  answer  the  purpose  of  sal- 
vation, though  they  viewed  it  as  imperfect,  and  not  en- 
titling to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church.  Had  it  not 
been  for  this  superstitious  notion,  that  baptism  was  saving, 
it  is  believed  we  should  have  found  no  solitary  instances 
of  sprinkling  or  pouring  throughout  the  whole  history  of 
the  ancient  church. 

Though  this  portion  of  Pedobaptists  concede  to  this 
statement,  yet  they  administer  this  rite  by  sprinkling. 
For  this  practice,  they  plead  that  the  law  of  baptism  was 
not  designed  to  be  inflexible,  but  may  be  accommodated  to 
different  customs  and  climates.  The  dispute  then  between 
them  and  us,  is  not  whether  the  Baptists  are  wrong  in 
.B 


14  LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM. 

their  mode.  They  grant  that  we  in  this  are  right;  that 
we  adhere  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  word,  which  desig- 
nates baptism,  and  that  when  we  administer  this  ordinance, 
we  imitate  the  example  of  Christ,  of  the  apostles,  and  the 
example  of  all  antiquity.  But  the  question  between  us 
is  simply  this  ;  whether  they  are  right  in  sprinkling  ;  or  ia 
other  words,  whether  they  have  a  right  to  vary  the  orig- 
inal law  of  baptism,  till  it  is  quite  another  thing.  In  sup- 
port of  their  practice,  it  behooves  them  to  exhibit  clear 
evidence,  that  Christ  has  lodged  in  their  hands  the  power 
of  altering  his  positive  institutions,  to  suit  the  present 
state  of  the  church  and  world.  It  will  not  answer  for 
them  to  fancy  that  this  power  is  necessary  for  the  peace 
and  comfort  of  the  church,  and  from  this  infer,  that  it  is 
the  will  of  Christ  that  the  church  should  possess  this 
power,  though  he  has  no  where  revealed  this  will.  Let 
this  lax  sentiment  be  once  pretty  generally  adopted  in  the 
Protestant  churches,  and  they  would  fast  retrace  their 
steps  back  to  the  man  of  sin,  where  this  power  of  legisla- 
tion once  reigned  without  control. 

It  is  not  now  my  object  to  state  the  arguments,  which 
are  offered  in  proof  of  this  supposed  right  to  vary  the 
laws  of  Christ.  In  some  future  Letter  we  shall  state  the 
arguments,  and  remark  upon  them.  But  our  present 
object  is  to  show  that  the  debate  on  the  mode  of  baptism 
between  us  and  this  class  of  Pedobaptists,  is  reduced  dowa 
to  this  simple  question ;  whether  they  are  right  in  devi- 
ating from  what  they  confess  was  the  original  institution. 
Here  the  labouring  oar  is  in  their  hands.  As  they  have* 
ventured  to  depart  from  acknowledged  primitive  practice, 
it  lies  with  them  to  make  good  such  departure. 

There  is  a  second  class  of  Pedobaptists,  who  maintain 
that  Christ  instituted  baptism.  But  they  say,  that  the 
word  which  he  employed  to  express  this  ceremony,  is  so 
various  and  obscure  in  its  meaning,  that  nothing  more  can 
be  learned  from  it,  than  that  water  is  to  be  applied  in  the 
name  of  the  Trinity  to  a  proper  subject,  and  by  a  proper 
administrator.  But  where,  or  how,  or  how  much,  or  how 
little  water  is  to  be  used,  no  one  can  tell.  No  one  can 
say  whether  it  is  to  be  applied  to  the  face,  or  hands,  or 
feet,  or  head,  or  to  the  whole  body;  or  whether  the  or- 
dinance is  to  be  administered  by  plunging,  or  pouring,  or 
washing,  or  sprinkling.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  this  im- 
penetrable obscurity,  that  they  suppose  each  man's  own 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM  15 

conscience  and  sense  of  propriety  must  form  the  law,  by 
which  the  mode  of  baptism  is  to  be  regulated.  One 
chooses  to  have  his  feet  washed,  and  pleads  the  example 
of  Christ  in  washing  the  disciples'  feet.*  A  second  pre- 
fers to  have  his  hands  washed,  and  refers  to  the  example 
of  David  and  others,  who  washed  their  hands  as  an  act  of 
purification.  A  third  wishes  to  have  his  face  sprinkled 
for  baptism ;  but  for  this  he  can  tind  no  example  in  the 
whole  word  of  God.  No  precept  or  example  can  be 
found  in  the  Bible,  (o  sanction  the  sprinkling  of  water  on 
the  face,  for  religious  purification.  And  a  fourth  jileads 
for  the  immersion  of  his  whole  body.  Now  they  must 
admit  the  validity  of  all  these  forms,  because  each  in  his 
turn  pleads  that  his  mode  is  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God.  Perhaps  they  would  say  that  one 
has  been  more  successful  in  their  opinion  than  the  rest  in 
guessing  at  what  was  the  primitive  mode  of  baptism. 

This  second  class  of  Pedobaptists  are  ready  to  admit, 
that  if  Christ  had  clearly  revealed  one  specific  mode  of 
baptism,  then  we  should  all  be  sacredly  bound  to  observe 
this  definite  form.  They  make  no  pretentions  to  legisla- 
tive power  to  vary  the  laws  of  Christ.  But  they  say  that 
the  language,  employed  to  express  baptism,  and  all  the 
circumstances  attending  its  first  observance,  are  so  per- 
fectly unintelligible,  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  what  was 
the  appointed  mode  among  the  earliest  christians.  The 
dispute  between  us  and  this  class  of  Pedobaptists  is  not, 
whether  immersion  be  right.  They  admit  that  it  is. 
And  we  too  must  admit  that  sprinkling  is  valid,  if  they  are 
correct  in  their  belief  that  the  law  of  baptism  is  so  ob- 
scure, that  no  one  can  ascertain  its  mode.  You  see  then 
that  the  question  between  us  is  simply  this  :  Is  the  law  of 
baptism  thus  impenetrably  obscure,  or  is  it  plain?  They 
affirm,  and  we  deny.  Does  this  obscurity  exist,  or  does  it 
not  ?  It  seems  that  the  Psalmist  did  not  anticipate  such  an 

•  Seme  say  that  this  example  of  Christ  in  washing  Peter's  feet 
supports  a  partial  application  of  water  in  baptism.  But  in  these 
words,  "  He  that  is  washed  needeth  not,  save  to  wash  his  feet, 
but  is  clean  every  whit,"  Christ  refers  to  two  separate  washings. 
Of  this  opinion  were  Gill,  ])odd,  Mc*Knight,  and  others.  Says 
Mc'Knight  on  this  text,  ••■  One  who  has  bathed  himself,  need  not 
after  that  wash  any  part  of  his  body,  except  his  feet,  which  in 
coming  out  of  the  bath  may  have  been  dirtied."  See  him  on  the 
place. 


16  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

obscure  law  when  he  said,  "  The  law  of  the  Lord  is  per- 
fect, converting  the  soul.  The  testimony  of  the  Lord  is 
sure,  making-  wise  the  simple.  The  commandment  of  the 
Lord  is  pure,  enlightening  the  eyes."  Nor  did  Mr.  Beech- 
er  believe  in  this  supposed  obscurity,  when  he  said,  "  the 
law  in  all  its  parts  must  be  intelligible,  otherwise  it  is  no 
law.*'  He  tells  us  that  on  the  ground  of  supposed  inev- 
itable uncertainty,  is  founded  the  plea  of  universal  charity. 
But,  says  he,  ''  who  is  this  that  libels  his  Maker  as  the 
author  of  an  obscure  and  useless  system  of  legislation, 
which  no  subject  can  understand  ? 

"  This  indeed  is  a  kind-hearted  system  in  its  aspect  on 
man  ;  but  how  tremendous  its  re-action  upon  the  charac- 
ter of  God  ?  Why  are  his  revealed  statutes  with  their 
sanctions  so  obscure  ?  Because  he  could  not  make  them 
intelligible  ?  You  impeach  his  wisdom.  Why  then  are 
they  obscure  ?  Because  he  would  not  make  them  plain  ? 
You  impeach  his  justice.  For  he  commands  his  truth  to 
be  loved  and  obeyed; — an  unjust  demand,  if  its  obscurity 
prevent  the  possibility  of  understanding  it."* 

There  is  a  third-class  of  Pedobaptists  who  maintain 
that  baptizo  means  to  sprinkle,  and  that  Christ,  and  the 
apostles,  and  all  the  primitive  churches,  generally  bap-^ 
tized  by  sprinkling  This  class  is  now  small,  and  it  is  be- 
Jieved  continually  sening.  The  question  between  them 
and  the  Baptists  is  .  lis  :  Whether  they  or  we  are  right  in 
giving  a  definition  to  the  word  employed  to  designate 
baptism. 

Having  specified  the  points  of  controversy,  I  shall  in 
my  future  Letters  exhibit  what  I  have  to  say  respecting 
them.     In  the  mean  time  I  remain,  Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  IV. 

AKMARKS  ON  THE  SUPPOSED  OBSCURITY  OF  THE  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Beloved  Friends, 

If  Christ  did  not  specify  any  mode  of  applying  water  in 
baptism,  then  he  must  have  foreborne  to  fix  the  mode  for 
one  of  two  reasons. 

First,  necessity  ;  or,  second,  choice. 

*  Se^  his  or^in^ition  sermon  ^i  Park  Street^  pp,  5,  9,  10, 


LETTERS    ON    BAPtlSM.  17 

It  the  language  in  which  Christ  spoke,  and  in  which  the 
sacred  penmen  wrote,  were  so  barren,  that  it  contained 
no  words  nor  phrases,  which  would  express  the  idea  of 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  bathing,  or  plunging,  then  it  is 
plain  that  necessity  would  have  obliged  him  to  be  silent 
on  all  these  modes  of  using  water.  The  language  would 
notdetine  either  of  them.  But  the  language  of  the  New 
Testament  is  not  thus  poor  in  words  and  phrases.  It  is 
rich  and  copious.  So  that  Dr.  Reed  is  very  correct  in 
saying  :  "If  it  had  been  the  intention  of  Christ, 
and  of  his  apostles,  to  have  specified  the  mode,  or 
to  have  restricted  all  christians  to  one  and  the  same  mode 
of  baptizing,  they  might,  for  this  purpose,  have  selected 
from  the  Greek  language  words  of  the  most  unequivocal 
and  definite  signification.  If  it  had  been  their  intention 
to  have  specified  the  mode  of  sprinkling,  they  might  have 
used  the  word  §«vT<^ft/,  [rantizo ;]  if  the  mode  of  pouring, 
they  might  have  used  the  word  8»;^;giw,  {ekcheo  ;)  if  that 
mode  of  washing  or  bathing,  which  was  performed  by  the 
application  of  water  with  friction  or  rubbing,  they  might 
have  used  the  word  A«y<y,  (/ouo.)"*  No  want  of  appropri- 
ate and  definite  words  then  made  it  necessary  for  Christ 
and  his  apostles  to  be  silent  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

2.  If  then  Christ  was  perfectly  indefinite  on  the  mode 
of  baptism,  he  chose  to  be  so.  He  saw  it  to  be  the  wisest 
and  best  to  express  himself  on  this  subject  with  such  cau- 
tious obscurity,  that  no  one  can  possibly  tell  how.  water 
is  to  be  applied  in  the  administration  of  baptism.  If  he 
meant  that  the  mode  should  have  been  wholly  concealed, 
would  he  not  have  chosen  the  word  ttyn^^i,  {agnizo)  to 
purify  ?  or  xxdm^u^  [katkairo]  to  cleanse  ?  neither  of 
which  defines  any  mode  of  application.  By  choosing  the 
word  baptizo^  he  certainly  gave  his  subjects  very  good 
ground  to  believe  that  he  meant  to  settle  the  mode  of 
baptism,  because  this  word  most  certainly  means  to  dip 
or  to  immerse,  in  its  first  and  most  common  acceptation. 
Dr.  Reed  says,  (though  we  do  not  admit  that  this  word 
was  so  vague  originally,  but  we  here  reason  on  his  ground) 
that  the  best  lexicographers  and  criticks,  which  he  has  con- 
sulted, have  rendered  the  Greek  word  baptizo  into  ten 
different  Latin  words.  The  five  first  are  baptizo^  mergo^  m- 

•  See  his  apology. 
B  2 


ly  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

mergo,  tingo,  intingo.^  All  these  first,  five  mean  to  inur 
merse,  or  dip.  Two  of  the  remaining  five,  mean  to  wash, 
one  to  wet,  and  two  to  cleanse.  Now  to  say  nothing 
about  this  washing,  and  wetting,  and  cleansing,  as  taking 
place  in  consequence  of  immersion,  still  we  maintain, 
that  the  fair  and  common  mode  of  explaining  statute  laws, 
will  lead  us  to  conclude  that  Christ  by  the  use  of  this 
word  meant  to  settle  the  mode  to  be  immersion.  A  subject 
of  Christ's  kingdom  may  say,  that  in  explaining  the  stat- 
utes of  my  supreme  Law-giver,  I  am  not  to  be  guided  by 
the  eighth  or  tenth  meaning  of  the  word,  which  express- 
es the  principal  action  of  my  duty,  if  it  have  so  many 
senses ;  nor  am  I  to  be  guided  by  its  figurative  or  mys- 
tical use,  but  I  am  to  explain  this  word  in  the  statute 
according  to  its  first  and  most  common  acceptation.  This 
is  the  language  of  common  sense,  and  is  confirmed  by  the 
best  of  human  judges.  Says  Sir  William  Blackstone, 
who  lays  it  down  as  a  rule  of  legal  interpretation  :  "  That 
the  words  of  a  law  are  generally  to  be  understood  in 
their  usual  and  most  known  signification,  not  so  much  re- 
garding the  propriety  of  grammar,  as  their  general  and 
popular  use."t 

Says  Dr.  Doddridge,  "  I  am  more  and  more  convinc- 
ed that  the  vulgar  sense  of  the  New  Testament,  that  is, 
the  sense  in  which  an  honest  man  of  plain  sense  would 
take  it,  on  his  first  reading  the  original,  or  any  good 
translation,  is  most  every  where  the  true  and  the  general 
sense  of  the  passage.  I  choose  to  follow  the  plainest 
and  the  most  obvious  and  common  interpretation,  which 
indeed  I  generally  think  the   best."| 

Thus,  my  brethren,  I  have  endeavoured  to  shew  that 
no  poverty  of  language  made  it  necessary  for  Christ  to 
be  silent  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  And  that  if  it  had 
been  bis  intention  to  express  himself  with  such  studied 
obscurity,  that  the  mode  should  be  perfectly  concealed, 
he  would  not  have  chosen  haptizo^  because  this  word 
would  have  defeated  his  object  of  concealment. 

1  now  leave  it  for  you  to  say,  my  brethren,  whether 
the  mode  of  baptism  is  hid  beyond  the  possibility  of  detec- 
tion. I  am,  &c. 

•  Tingo.,  and  intingo,  were  used  by  the  Romans  to  express  the 
act  of  dyeing  cloth,  which  was  done  by  immersion. 
■f  Commentary,  vol.  1.   Introduction,  sect.  2. 
^  Note  on  M«ttt  ZYiU*  17,  and  2  Cor.  viix.  1. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  19- 

LETTER  V. 

SCRIPTURES   IN    PROOF    OF   THE  MODE. 

Beloved  Friends, 

We  are  all  agreed  that  the  Scriptures,  not  tradition,  not 
canon  law,  are  to  be  our  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
As  baptism  is  a  christian  institute,  and  never  existed  as  a 
rite  of  admission  into  the  church,  and  as  expressive  of  our 
communion  with  Christ,  till  after  his  advent,  it  is  certainly- 
reasonable  to  say,  that  we  must  look  to  the  New  Testament 
to  gain  all  necessary  instruction,  respecting  its  origin,  its 
mode,  its  nature,  its  design,  and  its  practical  uses.  We  will 
therefore  proceed  to  collect  and  lay  before  you  all  the 
most  instructive  passages,  which  relate  to  this  Christian 
ordinance.  These  scriptures,  when  rightly  understood, 
you  may  be  certain,  will  give  a  definite  view  of  the  primi- 
tive practice  in  the  administration  of  this  ordinance. 

Matt.  iii.  5,  6,  7,  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and 
all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were 
baptized  of  him  in  Jordan^  confessing  their  sins.  But 
when  he  saw  many  of  the  pharisees  and  saaducees  come  to 
his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them,  O  generation  of  vipers,  &c. 
Verse  11,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repen- 
tance, &c.  Verses  13 — 16,  Then  cometh  Jesus  from 
Galilee  to  Jordan  unto  John  to  be  baptized  of  him.  But 
John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of 
thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?  And  Jesus  answering,  said 
unto  him,  suflfer  it  to  be  so  now  ;  for  thus  it  becometh  us 
to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  Then  he  suffered  him.  And 
Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of 
the  water.  Matt.  xxi.  25 — 27,  The  baptism  of  John, 
whence  was  it  ?  From  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  And  they  rea- 
soned with  themselves,  saying,  if  we  shall  say  from  heav- 
en, &c.  Mark  i.  4,  5,  John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness 
and  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission 
of  sins.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Ju- 
dea, and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  baptized  of  him 
in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.  Ver.  8,  9,  10, 
I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water.  And  it  came  to  pass  in 
those  days  that  Jesus  came  from  Nazareth  of  Galilee,  and 
was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan,  and  straightway  coming 
^p  out  of  the  water,  &c.     Mark  xi,  38,  The  baptism  of 


20  LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM. 

John,  was  it  from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  Luke  iii.  3,  And 
he  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan,  preaching  the 
baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Verses 
7,  8,  Then  saith  he  to  the  multitude  that  came  forth  to 
be  baptized  of  him,  O  generation  of  vipers,  &;c.  Verse 
12,  Then  came  also  publicans  to  be  baptized.  Verse 
16,  1  indeed  baptize  you  with  water.  Verse  21,  Now 
^vhen  all  the  people  were  baptized,  it  came  to  pass  that 
Jesus  also  being  baptized,  &c.  Luke  vii.  29,  30,  All  the 
people  that  heard  him,  and  the  publicans,  justified  God, 
being  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  John  ;  but  the  phari- 
sees  and  lawyers  rejected  the  counsel  of  God,  being  not 
baptized  of  him.  Luke  xx.  4,  The  baptism  of  John,  was 
it  from  heaven,  or  of  men  ?  John  i.  25,  26,  Why  baptiz- 
es! thou  then  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neith- 
er that  prophet?  John  answered  them,  saying,  I  baptize 
wit4i  water.  Verse  28,  Beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was 
baptizing.  Verse  31,  That  he  should  be  made  manifest 
to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with  water. 
Verse  33,  He  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water.  John 
iii,  23,  And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there  ;  and  they 
came  and  were  baptized.  John  iv.  1,  The  pharisees  had 
heard  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John. 
Chap.  X.  40,  Beyond  Jordan  into  the  place  where  John 
at  tirst  baptized.  Acts  i.  5,  John  truly  baptized  with  wa- 
ter. Verse  22,  Beginning  from  the  baptism  of  John. 
Acts  X.  37,  After  the  baptism  which  John  preached.  Chap, 
xi.  16,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water.  Chap.  xiii.  24, 
When  John  had  first  preached  before  his  coming,  the 
baptism  of  repentance  to  all  the  people.  Chap,  xviii.  25, 
He  (Apollos)  spake  and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the 
Lord,  knowing  only  the  baptism  of  John.  Chap.  xix.  3, 
4,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  ?  And  they  said,  un- 
to John's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptiz- 
ed with  the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  peo- 
ple, that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should  come 
after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 

Passages  of  Scripture  concerning  Christ's  baptism.  Mat- 
tliew  xxviii.  19,  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  Mark  xvi.  15, 
16,  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature,  he  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved.  John  iii.  22,  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and 
his  disciples  into  the  land  of  Judeaj  and  there  he  tarried 


LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM.  2l 

with  them  and  baptized.  Verse  26,  Behold  the  same  bap- 
tizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him.  Chap.  iv.  1,  2,  When 
iherefore  the  Lord  knew  how  that  the  pharisees  had  heard 
that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John, 
though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples.  Acts 
li.  38,  Then  said  Peter  unto  them,  repent  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.  Verse  41, 
Then  they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  baptized. 
Chap.  viii.  12,  13,  When  they  believed  Philip,  preaching 
the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  wo- 
men. Then  Simon  himself  believed  also,  and  when  he 
was  baptized,  &c.  Verse  16,  Only  they  were  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Verses  36 — 39,  And  as 
they  went  on  their  way,  they  came  unto  a  certain  water. 
And  the  eunuch  said,  see  here  is  water,  what  doth  hinder 
me  to  be  baptized  ?  And  Philip  said,  if  thou  believest, 
thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded  the 
chariot  to  stand  still.  And  they  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him. 
And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  &c. 
Chap.  ix.  18,  And  (Saul)  arose  and  was  baptized.  Chap. 
X.  47,  48,  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as 
well  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  Chap.  xvi.  15,  And  when  she,  Lydia, 
was  baptized,  and  her  household,  &c.  Verse  33,  And  was 
baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway.  Chap,  xviii.  8, 
And  many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed  and  were 
baptized.  Chap.  xix.  5,  When  they  heard  this  they  were 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Chap.  xxii.  16, 
And  now  why  tarriest  thou  ?  Arise* and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins.  Romans  vi.  3,  4,  Know  ye  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Christ  Jesus  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him 
by  baptism  ;  that,  &c.  1  Cor.  i.  13 — 17,  Were  ye  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Paul  ?  I  thauk  God  that  I  baptized 
none  of  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gains,  lest  any  should  say 
that  I  baptized  in  mine  own  name.  I  baptized  also  the 
household  of  Stephanas ;  besides  I  know  not  whether  I 
baptized  any  other ;  for  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel.  Chap.  xv.  19,  Else  what  shall 
they  do,  which  are  baptized  for  the  dead?  If  the  dead 
rise  not,  why  are  they  then  baptized  for  the  dead  ?     Gal, 


22  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

iii.  17,  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  Eph.  iv.  5,  One  baptism. 
Col.  ii.  12,  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye 
are  risen  with  him.  1  Peter  iii.  21,  The  like  figure 
whereunto  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the 
putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  towards  God)  by  the  resurrection  of  Je- 
sus Christ. 

These,  my  brethren,  are  nearly  all  the  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  in  which  this  ordinance  is  mentioned. 
They  are  certainly  among  the  most  plain  and  in- 
structive. If  you  can  gain  the  true  and  primitive 
meaning  of  the  principal  words  in  them,  you  will  un- 
questionably learn  the  manner  in  which  Christ  meant 
this  ceremony  should  be  performed.  In  the  above 
quotations,  the  words  which  the  sacred  penmen  employed 
to  express  the  action  of  baptism,  are  baptizo^  and  its  parti- 
ciple, and  the  noun  baptisma.  These  words,  when  em- 
ployed in  describing  this  ordinance,  were  not  translated 
into  English.  All  that  the  translators  did  to  them  was  to 
change  their  Greek  letters  for  Roman  ones,  and  then  trans- 
ferred them  into  our  language,  without  rendering  them 
into  appropriate  English  words.  That  these  words  were 
not  translated  into  our  language  is  a  fact,  which  no  learn- 
ed Pedo-baptist  is  disposed  to  question.  However,  in 
proof  of  this  fact,  I  will  give  the  opinion  of  the  celebrat- 
ed Dr.  Campbell.  He  observes,  that  "in  several  modern 
languages  we  have,  in  what  regards  Jewish  and  Christian 
rites,  generally  followed  the  usage  of  the  old  Latin  ver- 
sion, though  the  authors  of  that  version  have  not  been  en- 
tirely uniform  in  their  method.  Some  words  they  have 
transferred  from  the  original  into  their  language  ;  others 
they  have  translated.  But  it  would  not  always  be  easy  to  find 
their  reason  for  making  this  difference.  T^hus  the  word 
'TTipnofiYi^  {peritome^)  they  have  translated  circumcisio,  which 
exactly  corresponds  in  etymology  ;  but  the  word  /3cc7rrt?/^c6^ 
{baptisma^)  they  retained,  changing  only  the  letters  from 
Greek  into  Roman.  Yet  the  latter  was  just  as  susceptible 
of  a  literal  version  iato  Latin  as  the  former.  Immersio^ 
tinctio^  answer  as  exactly  in  the  one  case,  as  circumcisio^  in 
the  other."  He  further  adds,  "We  have  deserted  the 
Greek  names  where  the  Latins  have  deserted  them. 
Hence  we  say  circumcision^  and  not  peritomy  ;  and  we 
do  not  say  immersion^  but  baptism.       Yet  when  the  Ian- 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  23 

guage  furnishes  us  with  materials  for  a  version  so  exact 
and  analogical,  such  a  version  conveys  the  sense  more 
perspicuously  than  a  foreign  name.  For  this  reason  I 
should  think  the  word  immersion  (which,  though  of  Latin, 
origin,  is  an  English  noun,  regularly  formed  from  the  verb 
to  immerse)  a  better  name  than  baptism,  were  we  now 
at  liberty  to  make  a  choice."*  In  his  Four  Gospels,  (Note 
on  Matt.  iii.  11,)  he  says,  "  The  word  /iaTm^uv^  {baptizein^) 
both  in  sacred  authors,  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip, 
to  plunge,  to  immerse;  and  was  rendered  by  TertuUian, 
the  oldest  of  the  Latin  fathers,  tingere^  the  term  used  for 
dyeing,  which  was  by  immersion,  his  always  constructed 
suitably  to  this  meaning.  Thus  it  is,  iv  v^xri  tv  ru  lopj^y)}, 
(en  udati  en  to  Jordane.)  But  I  should  not  lay  much  stress 
on  the  preposition  «»  (en)  which  may  denote  tiytr/i,  as  well 
as  in^  did  not  the  whole  phraseology  in  regard  to  this 
ceremony,  concur  in  evincing  the  same  thing.  According- 
ly, the  baptized  are  said  to  uyx'^xivuv  {anabainein^)  to  arise, 
to  emerge,  or  ascend,  from  or  out  of  the  water.  Had  the 
word  baptizo  been  here  employed  in  the  same  sense  of 
^uim  {raino,)  I  sprinkle,  (which  as  far  as  I  know,  it  neuer 
is,  in  any  Wnsc,  sacred  or  classical)  the  expression  would 
doubtless  have  been  '  I  sprinkle  thee  with  water,'  &c. 
When  therefore  the  Greek  word  baptizo  is  adopted,  I 
may  say  rather  than  translated,  into  modern  languages,  the 
mode  of  construction  ought  to  be  preserved,  so  far  as  may 
conduce  to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regret- 
ted, that  we  have  so  much  evidence,  that  even  good  and 
learned  men  allow  their  judgments  to  be  warped  by  the 
sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sect,  which  they  prefer. 
The  true  partizan,  of  whatever  denomination,  always 
inclines  to  correct  the  diction  of  the  spirit  by  that  of  the 
party."! 

Thus  you  see,  that  these  words  were  not  rendered 
into  English.  And  had  they  been  correctly  translated, 
according  to  their  first  and  most  common  meaning,  they 
would  have  been  rendered  into  the  words  immerse.^  im^ 
m,ersing^  and  immersion.  And  then  you  would  have  been 
accustomed  from  your  childhood  to  read  your  Bible  in 
the  following  manner :  Then  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem 
and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 

•  See  his  Prelim.  Disser.  pp.  22,  23,  24, 
t  See  4th  vol.  p.  23,  24. 


24  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

were  immersed  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins. 
Then  conieth  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan,  unto  John  to 
be  immersed  of  him.  And  Jesus  when  he  was  immersed 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water.  Go  ye,  therefore^ 
teach  all  nations,  immersing  them  in,  &c.  And  they  went 
down  both  into  the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch, 
and  he  immersed  him.  And  so  you  would  have  read  all 
the  other  passages  in  the  New  Testament,  which  relate 
to  this  institution.*  Now  had  you  always  read  the  Scrip- 
tures in  this  manner,  1  would  ask  you  to  say,  my  brethren, 
and  to  say  with  candour,  whether  you  or  any  other  per- 
son would  have  ever  supposed,  that  sprinkling  was  that 
mode  of  baptism  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  administer- 
ed ?  Would  you  have  ever  thought  that  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism was  left  so  perfectly  undefined,  that  no  honest  in- 
quirer, however  extensively  and  ably  he  might  push  his 
his  inquiries  on  this  subject,  could,  after  all  his  labour, 
possibly  determine  whether  Christ  meant  to  institute 
sprinkling,  or  pouring,  or  bathing,  or  plunging  ?  I  speak 
as  to  wise  men,  judge  ye  of  what  I  say. 

I  am,  brethren,  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  VI. 


ARGUMENTS    FROM    THE    PLACES    SELECTED     FOR    BAPTISM,    AND 
FROM  THE    LANGUAGE    EMPLOYED  IN  ITS  DESCRIPTION. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

In  the  preceding  Letter  we  cited  nearly  all  the  passages 
of  Scripture  in  which  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  men- 
tioned. The  words  employed  to  express  the  name  and 
the  action  of  baptism  were  hapiis7na,  baptizo^  and  its  par- 
ticiple. These  words,  we  observed,  in  their  most  ob- 
vious and  generally  received  sense,  mean  immersion^ 
immerse  and  immersr.irr.  perhaps,  my  brethren, 
you  will  say  that  my  definition  of  these  words  is 
incorrect.  The  dispute  between  us  here,  respects  the 
meaning  of  those  Greek  terms,  which  are  employed  in 

•  In  the  texts  above  quoted,  these  words  occur  about  seventy 
eight  times.  Now  if  Christ  meiint  to  appoint  sprinkling,  is  it  not 
truly  surprising  that  be  should  so  uniformly  have  chosen  a  word" 
which,  in  its  first,  classical  and  sacred  sense,  means  immersion  ? 


LETTFRS     ON    BAPTISM.  25 

expressing^  the  action  of  baptism.  It  is  of  very  high  mo- 
ment, that  the  truth  respecting  their  signification  may  be 
clearly  ascertained  and  universally  known.  Because  if 
the  sense  of  these  words  can  be  obtained,  as  they  were 
understood  by  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians,  this 
long  and  unhappy  controversy  will  come  to  a  close.  Pedo- 
baptists,  I  believe,  very  generally  agree,  that  the  whole 
controversy,  respecting  the  mode,  rests  very  materially 
on  the  meaning  of  these  words.  How  desirable,  then, 
that  some  course  should  be  taken,  which  shall  bring  us 
to  their  true  and  primitive  sense  !  Is  there  no  way  by 
which  we  may  learn  definitely  what  was  that  ceremony 
or  action  which  Christ  required  of  his  disciples,  when  he 
commanded  them  to  baptize  those  whom  they  had 
taught?  Is  there  no  uray)ire  to  which  we  may  all  appeal, 
and  by  whose  decisions  we  may  safely  abide  ?  It  is  not  req- 
uisite to  prove  that  these  words  are  always  used  literally. 
Without  doubt  they  have  a  figurative  sense.  But  it  is 
not  correct  to  reason  from  the  figurative  against  the  lit- 
eral application  of  a  word.  The  word  baptizo^  some  say, 
doth  not  mean  immersion,  because  it  is  employed  to  ex- 
press the  sufferings  of  Christ.  Here,  without  doubt,  it  is 
used  figuratively  His  sufferings  were  so  great,  that  they 
were  justly  compared  to  a  flood.  Great  afflictions  are 
often  compared  to  floods  and  waves.  See  Psal.  Ixix.  1,2. 
and  xlii.  7.  "  Save  me,  O  God,  for  the  waters  are  come 
in  unto  my  soul.  I  sink  in  deep  mire — I  am  come  into 
deep  waters  where  the  floods  overflow  me.  All  the 
waves  and  the  billows  are  gone  over  me."  Some  of  these 
words  are  expressly  applied  to  Christ.  His  sufferings 
were  so  great  and  numerous,  that,  like  the  numberless 
drops  of  rain,  they  formed  a  sea  in  which  he  was  over- 
whelmed. Between  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and.  his  bap- 
tism there  were  some  points  of  resemblance,  or  the  com- 
parison would  never  have  been  made.  His  soul  was 
covered  in  the  waves  of  pain  and  sorrow,  like  as  his  body 
was  buried  by  baptism.  But  the  propriety  and  the  force 
of  this  comparison  is  at  once  lost,  if  sprinkling  weie  the 
mode.  If  Christ  were  sprinkled,  and  if  this  were  the 
mode  of  baptism,  w^ould  he  then  say,  that  my  approach- 
ing sufferings  will  be  so  great  and  distressing,  that  their 
overwhelming  nature  may  be  very  fitly  compared  to  a 
baptism,  in  which  a  few  drops  of  water  are  scattered  on 
the  face  ?  Ail  that  we  shall  attempt  to  prove,  is,  that 
c 


26  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

we  have  defined  these  words,  according  to  their  most 
fair  and  obvious  sense,  and  as  Christ,  the  Apostles,  and 
primitive  Christians  understood  them.  In  support  of  our 
definition  we  appeal  to  the  best  arguments  and  to  the 
most  unexceptionable  judges. 

We  derive  an  argument  of  no  inconsiderable  weight  in 
favour  of  immersion  from  the  places  chosen  for  its  ad- 
ministration, and  from  the  concomitant  language  employ- 
ed in  its  description.  The  places  chosen  were  rivers 
and  large  collections  of  water,  and  places  where  there 
was  much  water.  But  why  speak  of  rivers  and  places  of 
much  water  to  baptize  in,  if  sprinkling  were  the  mode  ? 
a  mode  in  which  a  few  gills  of  water  would  have  sufficed 
for  many  thousands.  Why  speak  of  going  down  into  the 
water,  of  baptizing  in  Jordan,  and  then  of  coming  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water,  if  the  application  was  by 
sprinkling?  If  this  were  the  case,  then  the  administrator 
with  a  little  vessel  of  water  in  his  hand,  could  have  sprin- 
kled his  subjects  much  more  conveniently  and  comfortably 
on  dry  ground  than  in  streams.  Why  speak  of  being 
buried  by  baptism,  if  all  that  was  done,  was  the  scattering 
of  a  few  drops  of  water  on,  or  the  touch  of  wet  fingers  to, 
the  face?  Why  speak  of  having  the  whole  body  washed 
with  purs  water  in  baptism,  if  the  face  only  was  sprinkled  ? 
Why  speak  of  being  buried  and  of  rising  in  baptism  with 
Christ,  if  there  were  nothing  in  the  ceremony  which 
shadowed  forth  a  burial  and  resurrection?  In  sprinkling, 
what  distant  resemblance  is  there  of  the  burial  and  res- 
urrectigm  of  Christ  ? 

If  sprinkling  were  the  ancient  mode,  why  were  bap- 
tisteries built  all  over  the  Christian  world,  and  for  cen- 
turies employed  for  places  for  baptism  ?  These  were 
Jarge  buildings.  A  description  of  them  you  may  read  in 
Rees'  Cyclopedia,  and  in  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism. 
By  a  baptistery  is  to  be  understood  a  large  octagon  build- 
ing, with  a  cupola  roof,  resembling  the  dome  of  a  cathe- 
dral, adjacent  to  a  church,  but  no  part  of  it.  All  (he 
middle  part  of  this  building  was  one  large  hall,  capable 
of  containing  a  multitude  of  people.  The  sides  were 
parted  off  and  divided  into  rooms ;  and  in  some,  rooms 
were  added  withoutside,  in  the  fashion  of  cloisters.  In 
the  middle  of  the  great  hall  was  an  octagon  bath  of  water 
about  thirty-seven  and  a  half  inches  deep.  This  bath 
was  called  the  pool,  the  pond,  and  the  place  to  swim   in. 


LETTERS      ON    B.APTISM.  27 

The  administrator  and  the  subject  descended  to  the  water 
by  stairs,  and  when  they  had  reached  it,  the  ordinance 
was  performed  by  immersion.  If  sprinkling-  were  the 
ancient  mode,  we  cannot  account  for  the  existence  of 
these  large  buiidiijgs  over  deep  fountains  of  water.  Nor 
would  they  have  been  built,  had  iniant  baptism  been 
the  general  practice.  Accordingly  we  find,  that  as  Pedo- 
baptism  advanced,  baptisteries  were  found  to  be  more  and 
more  useless,  till  at  length  they  were  deserted,  and  little 
fonts  for  infants  occupied  their  place. 

Before  we  leave  the  argument  drawn  from  the  places 
and  descriptive  language  of  baptism,  we  submit  for  your 
consideration  the  following  journal  of  a  missionary,  whoso 
name  and  denomination  are  both  suppressed. 

He  observes,  that   "  On  Lord's-day  I  preached  at , 

to  a  large  assembly  ;  that  1  pressed  upon  my  hearers  the 
great  duties  of  repentance  and  faith;  and  all  those,  who 
gave  good  evidence  of  possessing  these  graces,  I  baptized 
in  the  river  Hudson,  confessing  their  sins,  and  then  came 
up  straightway  out  of  the  water.  The  next  day  while  oq 
my  way,  I  overtook  a  man,  who,  after  much  conversation 
on  the  word  of  life,  professed  his  faith  in  Christ,  as  the 
Son  of  God.      We  soon  arrived  at  the  church  and  society 

of ,  when  he  requested  to  be  baptized,  and  admitted 

to  their  communion  ;  and  I,  having  no  doubt  but  he  pos- 
sessed fiiith,  the  requisite  grace,  at  once  complied,  and 
like  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  we  both  went  down  into  the 
water,  and  I  baptized  him.  And  when  we  had  come  up 
out  of  the  water,  he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing.  Tlie  next 
Lord's-day  I  baptized  a  large  number  who  brought  forth 
fruits  meet  for  repentance,  in  a  certain  place  previoush'^ 
chosen,  because  there  was  much  water  there.  After  this 
I  exhorted  them  all  to  remember  that  they  had  put  on 
Christ ;  that  in  their  baptism  they  had  been  symbolically 
buried  and  raised  with  him,  and  therefore  they  ought  to 
be  careful  to  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

When  you  had  finished  this  journal,  would  you  not  all 
say,  this  missionary  v.-ithout  doubt  was  a  Baptist,  for  this 
narrative  exactly  describes  the  practice  of  that  denom- 
ination ?  Whose  practice  then  did  this  same  Bible  lan- 
guage describe  more  than  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ? 
If  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians  were  Pedobaptists, 
and  practised  adult  and  infant  sprinkling,  it  seems  they 
were  very  unfortunate  in  selecting  language  to  paint  their 


28  LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM. 

practice,  which  their  posterity  at  this  day  cannot  employ., 
in  describing  their  mode,  without  involving  themselves  in 
strong  suspicions,  that  they  have  turned  to  the  opposite 
persuasion.  But  the  mode  of  the  Baptists  is  the  best  de- 
scribed by  this  language  of  scripture.  Is  not  this  some 
proof  that  they  in  this  are  right?  Which  is  safest,  to  fol- 
low a  mode  evidently  described  in  the  word  of  God,  or  to 
follow  one  which  is  not  ? 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  VII. 

OBJECTIONS     TO     THK     REASONING     IN    THE     PRECEDING    LETTER 
STATED    AND    ANSWERED. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

I  am  aware  that  some  say  the  prepositions  in  the  places 
mentioned  and  alluded  to  in  my  last  Letter,  may  mean  with^ 
or  at,  or  io,  and/rom.  It  is  true  that  the  preposition  tv  (en,) 
may  mean  with ;  and  the  preposition  g<5  [eis]  may  mean  io^ 
and  the  preposition  «5rft>,  [apo)  may  mean  from.  And  the 
general  construction  of  the  period,  in  which  they  are  used, 
must  determine  their  signification.  It  would  sound  very 
singularly  to  say  that  John  baptized  with  the  whole  river 
<?f  Jordan,  or  with  the  whole  town  or  city  of  Enon,  be- 
cause there  was  much  water  there.  If  the  prepositions, 
which  are  rendered  into  and  out  of  the  water,  were  in- 
tended to  express  motion  to  and /ro^n,  then  they  would 
probably  have  been  constructed  with  different  verbs,  from 
those,  with  which  they  are  now  connected.  If  the  evangel- 
ist had  intended  to  have  described  simple  motion  from  the 
water,  would  he  not  have  chosen  ^uiy6>^{baino)  which  means 
to  go^  to  walk]  and  in  this  connection  the  preposition  ccttm, 
(apo)  would  naturally  mean /rom  the  vvater.  But  now  it  is 
joined  with  uvu^xim,  [anahaino)  which  means  to  ascend,  to 
climb,  to  get,  or  come  up.  As  this  verb  describes  a  ris- 
ing and  not  a  horizontal  motion,  it  is  natural  to  give  the 
preposition,  <e5rft>,  {apo)  a  corresponding  sense,  namely,  he 
ascended  out  q/'the  water.  So  on  the  other  hand,  if  Luke 
had  intended  to  tell  us,  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  simply 
went  to  the  water,  and  not  into  it,  would  he  not  have  taken 
^stim  [haino]  ?  But  now  he  has  chosen  Kctlx^etiva^  [kata- 
baino)  which  is  a  compound  verb,  and  means,  to  go  down- 
ward.    How  natural  thea  to  render  the  phrase,  imme- 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  29.^ 

<iiately  connected  with  this  verb,  into  the  following  words ; 
they  went  down  both  into  the  "water  \  But  the  sense 
which  some  would  affix  to  ihese  prepositions  in  these  pas- 
sages, makes  the  whole  account  of  baptism  appear  ex- 
tremely unnatural.  Is  it  rational  to  suppose  that  John 
and  the  disciples  of  Christ  would  from  time  to  time  lead 
their  subjects  to  and  from  some  river,  pond  or  large  col- 
lection of  water,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  sprinkling  Z 
Since  sprinkling  has  prevailed,  have  not  Pedobaptists 
found  it  most  convenient  to  bring  water  in  a  bason  to  their 
subjects,  rather  than  to  lead  them  out  of  the  assembly  to 
some  distant  stream,  and  there  to  sprinkle  them  at  the 
river's  side  ?  It  is  true  that  the  phrases,  into  and  out  of 
the  water,  will  not  of  themselves  prove  immersion.  But 
they  are  strong,  corroborating  evidence.  It  is  not  simply 
said  that  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  into  the  water,  but 
that,  while  in  the  water,  he  immersed  or  baptized  him. 

1  know  also  that  some  have  endeavoured  to  evade  the 
force  of  the  argument,  drawn  from  the  places  chosen  for 
the  administration  of  this  rite,  by  saying,  that  they  were 
selected  not  for  baptism,  but  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
furnishing  the  multitudes  of  men  and  beasts  with  a  suffi- 
ciency of  drink.  And  in  contiimation  of  this  opinion,  they 
say  that  the  Greek  ttoXXx,  v^arcc,  (polla  udata,)  translated 
inuch  water^  means  many  waters,  that  is,  many  little 
springs  or  brooks,  scattered  about,  at  no  great  distance 
from  each  other,  and  containing  water  enough  to  supply 
many  thousands  of  men  and  animals  with  drink,  but  not  a 
depth  sufficient  for  immersion.  If  these  words,  5raAA<» 
v^ecrec^  (potla  udata^)  mean  many  little  separate  streams,  and 
not  much  water  collected,  why  did  Jeremiah  call  the 
great  river  Euphrates  v^cca-t  TroXMif^  (iidasi  pollois)  many 
waters?  Did  he  mean  many  little  brooks?  Jer.  li.  13. 
Why  did  the  Psalmist  call  the  sea,  and  the  great  waters  of 
the  ocean  v^xrm  7rcXXa>v^{udatdn  poUbn^  if  these  words  meaa 
many  little  spm^gs  or  streams,  and  not  much  collected 
water  ?  If  tcoXXcc  v^ura  (polla  udata]  mean  many  rivu- 
lets, then  will  not  the  singular  ^roAw  v^a^^  [polu  udor)  mean 
one  such  stream?  But  did  Ezekiel  mean  one  small  stream, 
when  he  said,  "  I  shall  bring  up  the  deep  upon  thee, 
and  great  waters,  v^ai^  tt^Xv,  [udor  polu,)  shall  cover 
thee  ?'**  chap.  xxvi.  19.  The  fact  is,  as  critics  tell  us, 
e  2 
•  See  the  Septuagiat  on  the  above  passages. 


:30  LETTEks  on    baptism. 

the  Hebrew  word  for  water  has  no  plural  form.  Hence 
the  Greek  translators  sometimes  rendered  it  into  the  sin- 
gular «^&/|,  (udor)  and  sometimes  into  the  plural  «^«r«, 
{udata.)  Therefore  the  phrases  it6Xv  v^a^^  [polxi  udor) 
and  ^«AAfl6  v^<5tT06,  [polla  udata)  sometimes  mean  the  same, 
and  both  mean  much  water. 

Besides,  if  Jerusalem  would  not  supply  the  numbers, 
who  followed  John,  with  water  for  this  purpose,  then  it 
would  not  supply  the  vastly  greater  multitudes,  who  re- 
sorted thither  thrice  every  year,  to  keep  their  great 
festivals.  If  Jerusalem  were  such  a  scanty  place  for 
water,  then  why  were  not  these  festivals  celebrated  on 
the  banks  of  Jordan,  where  all  the  many  thousands  of 
Israel  might  be  supplied  with  drink?  But  in  opposition' to 
all  this,  the  inspired  penman  tells  us  that  in  Enon  John 
was  baptizing,  because  there  was  much  water  there.  It 
is  plain  that  the  much  water  was  chosen  for  the  conve- 
nience of  immersion,  while  there  is  not  the  least  intima- 
tion that  it  was  selected  for  a  drinking  place  for  men  and 
animals.  Calvin,  Aretius,  Piscator,  Grotius,  and  Mc' 
Knight,  on  this  passage,  tell  us  that  in  this  place  there 
was  a  sufficiency  of  water  to  immerse  the  whole  body. 
They  never  supposed  that  this  spot  was  chosen  for  any 
other  purpose  than  for  baptism.  It  is  seriously  doubted 
whether  any,  who  plead  for  sprinkling,  are  satisfied  with 
*his  forced  construction  of  the  passage. 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  VIIT. 

FROOF    FROM    THE    PRIMITIVE    CHURCH. 

Seloved  Brethren, 

In  our  two  last  Letters  we  exhibited  proof  that  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  baptism  was  performed  by 
immersion.  This  proof  was  taken  from  the  meaning  of 
the  word  in  the  institute,  and  from  the  places  and  de- 
scriptive language  of  baptism.  We  will  now  proceed  to 
examine  the  history  of  the  primitive  church,  to  learn 
whether  their  manner  of  administering  this  ordinance 
agrees  with  the  apostolic  practice. 

Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin  fathers,  says :  "  We 
die  symbolically  in  baptism."  Upon  these  words,  Rigal- 
tius  remarks  :  "  We  are  immersed  as  if  we  suffered  deatb> 
and  rise  up  out  of  the  water,  as  reviving  again." 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  31 

Chrysostom  says  :  "  To  be  dipped  and  plunged  into  the 
water,  and  then  to  rise  out  of  it  again,  is  a  symbol  of  our 
descent  into  the  grave,  and  of  our  ascent  out  of  it.  And 
therefore  Paul  calls  baptism  a  burial,  when  he  says  we 
are  therefore  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death." 

St.  Barnabas  says,  "  we  go  down  into  the  water  full  of 
sins  and  pollution,  but  come  up  again,  bringing  forth  fruit 
in  our  hearts,  Slc." 

TertuHian,  in  his  Treatise  on  Baptism,  says :  "  It  is  all 
one,  whether  we  are  washed  in  the  sea  or  in  a  pond  ;  in 
a  fountain,  or  in  a  river ;  in  a  standing,  or  in  a  running 
water:  nor  is  there  any  difference  between  those  that 
John  baptized  in  Jordan,  and  those  that  Peter  baptized  in 
the  Tiber."* 

Justin  Martyr  in  his  apology  before  the  Roman  empe- 
ror, says.:  '-*  I  shall  now  lay  before  you  the  manner  of 
dedicating  ourselves  to  God,  through  Christ,  upon  our 
conversion.  As  many  therefore  as  are  persuaded  and  be- 
lieve that  the  thmgs  taught  and  said  by  us  are  true,  and 
moreover  take  upon  them  to  live  accordingly,  are  taught 
to  pray,  and  to  ask  of  God  with  fasting,  the  forgiveness  of 
their  former  sins ;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  they  are 
brought  to  a  place  of  water,  and  are  washed  in  the  name 
of  God  the  Falher.  Moreover  the  person  baptized  and 
illuminated  is  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  (Booth's  Paedo. 
vol.  ii.  p.  110,  111.) 

Basil,  archbishop  of  Caesarea,  puts  the  following  ques- 
tions in  his  Lent  sermons,  to  the  catechumens  before 
their  baptism  : — '•  How  can  we  be  placed  in  a  condition 
of  likeness  to  his  death  ?  Answer.  By  being  buried  with 
him  in  baptism.  How  are  we  to  go  down  with  him  into 
the  grave  ?  By  imitating  the  burial  of  Christ  in  baptism; 
for  the  bodies  of  the  baptized  are  in  a  sense  buried  in 
water.  By  three  immersions  we  administer  this  impor- 
tant ceremony  of  baptism,  that  death  may  be  represented 
in  a  figure."  (See  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  p.  76^ 
77.) 

Grotius,  in  his  Annotation  on  Matt.  iii.  6,  says,  "  That 
this  rite  was  to  be  performed  by  immersion,  and  not  by 
perfusion,  appears  both  by  the  propriety  of  the  word  and 
the  places  chosen  for  its  administration.  John  iii.  23« 
Acts  viii.  38.  And  by  the  many  allusions  of  the  Apostles 

•  See  Gale's  Reflections,  pp.  190,  191. 


32  LETTERS  ON    BAPTISM, 

which  cannot  be  referred  to  sprinkling,  (Rom.  vi.  3,  4. 
Col.  ii.  12,)  the  custom  of  perfusion  or  aspersion  seems 
to  have  obtained  some  time  after,  in  favour  of  such  who, 
lying-  dangerously  ill,  were  desirous  to  dedicate  them- 
selves to  Christ.  These  were  called  denies  by  other 
christians." 

To  these  testimonies  we  will  add  that  of  several  wri- 
ters, who  have  given  us  the  history  of  the  primitive 
church. 

Eusebius,  (Eccles.  Hist.  lib.  vi.  chap.  43,  p.  1 13,)  speak- 
ing of  Novatian,  says  :  "  He  received  baptism,  being  be- 
sprinkled with  water  on  the  bed  where  he  lay,  if  that  can 
be  called  baptism."  This  author  then  strongly  doubted 
whether  besprinkling  could  be   properly  called  baptism. 

Du  Pin  says,  '•'•  In  the  three  first  centuries,  they  plung- 
ed those  three  times  in  the  water  whom  they  baptized.** 
(vol.  ii.  p.  77.)  The  history  of-  the  church,  written  by 
an  impartial  hand,  says,  speaking  of  the  three  lirst  centu- 
ries, ''  To  me  it  seems  evident  that  their  usual  custom 
was  to  immerse,  or  to  dip  the  whole  body.'*  (p.  73,  2nd 
part.) 

Gregory,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  informs  us,  that 
baptism,  in  the  primiiive  times,  was  administered  by  im- 
mersion.    (See  vol.  i.  pages  53  and  89.) 

Says  Mosheim,  "  Those  who  had  formed  the  resolu- 
tion of  amending  their  lives  were  initiated"  by  John  "in- 
to the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer  by  immersion.*' — "The 
sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  in  the  second  cen- 
tury without  the  public  assemblies,  in  places  appointed 
and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion. Those  adult  persons,  that  desired  to  be  baptiz- 
ed, received  the  sacrament  of  baptism  according  to  the 
ancient  and  primitive  manner  of  celebrating  that  institu- 
tion, even  by  immersion."  (See  his  Eccles.  Hist.  Cent, 
i.  part  i.  Chap.  iii.  §  iii.  and  Cent.  xvii.  §  ii.  part.  ii.  and 
Chap.  vii.  and  §  i.) 

Dr.  Cave,  in  his  Primitive  Christianity,  says,  "  The  ac- 
tion having  proceeded,  thus  far,  the  party  to  be  baptized 
was  wholly  immersed  or  put  under  water,  which  was  the 
almost  universal  custom  of  those  times."  (See  Part  i. 
Chap.  X.  p.  203.  Edit.  7th.) 

Eusebius,  in  his  Life  of  Constantine  the  Great,  records 
the  following  speech  of  the  dying  Emperor.  "  This  is 
the  hour  (that  is,  the  hour  of  his  baptism)  wherein  even 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  33 

we  may  also  enjoy  that  seal,  which  confers  immortality. 
I  had  heretofore  taken  a  resolution  of  doing  this  in  the 
stream  of  the  river  Jordan,  where  our  Saviour  himself  in 
likeness  to  us  is  recorded  to  have  partaken  of  the  laver." 
(Lib.  iv.  chap.  62.)  Sickness  prevented  this  design,  and 
the  Emperor  was  baptized  in  the  usual  way,  by  Eusebi- 
us,  in  the  suburbs  of  Nicomedia.  (See  Du  Pfn,  vol.  ii, 
p.  90.) 

This  account  is  confirmed  by  Gregory,  who,  speaking 
of  the  fourth  century,  says,  '^  Many  were  so  desirous  of 
receiving  this  initiatory  rite  in  the  same  place  with  Christ, 
that  they  delayed  baptism  till  they  could  travel  into  Ju- 
dea.  The  emperor  Constantine  was  among  the  number, 
and  earnestly  desired  to  receive  the  baptismal  rite  in  the 
waters  of  Jordan."   (Vol.  i.  p.  191,    192.) 

These  facts  carry  with  them  much  weight.  They 
show  that  this  great  man  and  many  others  wished  not  on- 
ly to  follow  Christ  in  the  mode,  but  into  the  very  river 
where  their  Lord  was  buried  and  raised  from  his  watery 
grave.  These  quotations  show  us  how  baptism  was  per- 
formed in  the  four  first  centuries. 

Robinson,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  informs  us  that  all 
the  eastern  churches,  which  are  independent  of  the  Ro- 
man hierarchy,  always  have,  and  do  even  to  this  day, 
practise  immersion.  These  churches  are  numerous,  and 
embrace  many  professors.  This  learned  and  laborious  au- 
thorexhibits  proof  that  the  Nestorian  church,  the  christians 
of  St.  Thomas,*  Asian  Jacobites,  who  took  their  name 
from  Jacob  ^araedeus,  the  African  Jacobites,  the  Armenian 
church,  the  Georgian  church,  the  disciples  of  St.  John, 
and  the  Manichaeans,  all  through  their  whole  history,  ad- 
minister this  ordinance  by  immersion.  (See  his  Hist. 
Boston  edit.  pp.  439—450. 

Nor  did  these  ancient  churches  think  that  any  thing 
short  of  immersion  was  baptism,  only  in  given  cases  of 
necessity.  This  might  be  proved  by  numerous  quota- 
tions.     But  we  will  be  brief.     "  Novatian  was  besprink- 

•  The  Christians  of  St.  Thomas  often  defer  the  baptism  of  their 
children  several  years.  Learned  men  have  not  been  able  to  as- 
certain whether  these  christians  were  denominated  from  Thomas 
the  Apostle,  who,  it  is  said,  preached  the  gospel  in  India,  or  from 
Thomas,  a  Manichean,  or  from  an  Armenian  merchant,  named 
Tfeoma«,  or  from  some  Nestorian  bishop  of  the  same  name.  The 
first  of  the  two  last  is  the  most  probable.  See  Robinson*s  Hist.  p. 
442. 


34  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

led  in  his  bed  in  the  year  two  hundred  and  fifty,  because 
they  thought  he  would  immediately  die,  and  could  not 
be  immersed."  But  this  mode  was  deemed  so  imperfect, 
that  those  who  were  besprinkled  on  their  bed  in  the 
immediate  prospect  of  death,  and  because  they  were  not 
able  to  be  dipped,  were  not  allowed  any  office  in  the 
church.  Valesius  notes,  "  that  this  baptism  was  thought 
imperfect  for  several  reasons."  Patavius  says,  "  such 
were  thought  irregularly  baptized,  and  were  never  ad- 
mitted into  holy  orders,  attributing  it  to  their  perfusion." 
Cornelius  speaks  thus  doubtfully  of  Novatian's  sprinkling  r 
*' If  such  a  one  may  be  said  to  be  baptized." — After  this 
be  says,  "  It  was  not  thought  lawful  for  any,  who  was 
baptized  in  his  bed,  by  perfusion,  to  be  admitted  to  any 
charge  in  the  church."  The  bishop  of  Oxford  says, 
"  Novatian  was  obnoxious  on  two  accounts  ;  first,  because 
he  had  made  a  schism  on  account  of  the  lapsi,  and  second, 
because  though  he  had  water  poured  upon  him  in  bed, 
yet  he  was  not  baptized."  (See,  Gale's  Reflections,  p. 
208.) 

To  the  above,  I  will  add  the  testimony  of  four  oth- 
ers. "  The  first  is  that  learned  and  elegant  antiquary, 
Paul  Maria  Paciaudi.  In  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  sec- 
ond dissertation,  he  speaks  of  the  two  baptisteries  at  Ra- 
venna, and  finds  fault  with  the  artists  for  representing 
John  the  Baptist  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  Jesus. 
"  Nothing,  exclaims  he,  can  be  more  monstrous  than 
these  emblems  !  Was  our  Lord  Christ  baptized  by  asper- 
sion ?  This  is  so  far  from  being  true,  that  nothing  can  be 
more  opposite  to  truth,  and  it  is  to  be  attributed  to  the 
ignorance  and  rashness  of  workmen." 

*'  The  second  is  that  excellent  judge,  Dr.  Joseph  De 
Vicecomes  of  Milan.  In  the  sixth  chapter  of  the  fourth 
book  on  the  ceremonies  of  baptism,  he  says,  "  I  will  nev- 
er cease  to  profess  and  teach  that  only  immersion  in  wa- 
ter, except  in  cases  of  necessity,  is  lawful  baptism  in  the 
church.  I  will  refute  that  false  notion  that  baptism  was 
administered  in  the  primitive  church  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling." 

"  The  third  is  Father  Mabillon.  He  says,  that  although 
there  is  mention  made  in  the  Life  of  S.  Liudger  of  bap- 
tizing a  little  infant  by  pouring  on  holy  water,  yet  it  was 
cow^rarj/ to  an  express  canon  of  the  ninth  century:  cou' 
trary   to   the  canon   given  by  Stephen,  which  allowee! 


LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM.  S5 

pouring  only  in  cases  of  necessity  :  contrary  to  the  gen- 
eral practice  in  France,  where  trine  immersion  was  used  : 
contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  Spaniards,  who  used  single 
immersion  :  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  Alwin,  who  con- 
tended for  trine  immersion  :  and  contrary  to  the  practice 
of  many,  who  continued  to  dip  till  the  fifteenth  century. 
For  all  this  he  quotes  his  authorities." 

"  The  fourth*  is  the  celebrated  Lewis  Anthony  Mura- 
tori,  a  man  to  be  had  in  everlasting  remembrance  for  the 
extent  of  his  knowledge,  the  indefatigableness  of  his  ap- 
plication, the  refinement  of  his  understanding,  and  the  ac- 
curacy of  his  taste  ;  the  ornament  of  his  country,  and  an 
honour  to  humanity  itself  This  perfect  master  of  the 
subject,  in  the  fourth  volume  of  his  Antiquities  of  the 
middle  ages  of  Italy,  in  the  fifty-seventh  dissertation, 
treats  of  the  rites  of  the  church  of  Milan,  called  the  Am- 
brosian  from  Saint  Ambrose,  the  first  compiler  of  the 
ritual  of  that  church.  As  usual,  he  confirms  every 
word  by  original  authentic  papers.  Speaking  of  bap- 
tism by  trine  immersion,  which  was  the  Ambro- 
sian  method,  he  says  :  "  Observe  the  Ambrosian  man- 
ner of  baptizing.  Now-a-days  the  priests  preserve  a 
shadow  of  the  ancient  Ambrosian  form  of  baptizing,  for 
they  do  not  baptize  by  pouring  as  Romans  do  :  but,  tak- 
ing the  infant  in  their  hands,  they  dip  the  hinder  part  of 
his  head  three  times  in  the  baptismal  water  in  the  form 
of  a  cross  :  which  is  a  vestige  yet  remaining  of  the  most 
ancient  and  universal  practice  of  immersion."  See  Rob. 
Hist,  of  Bap:  pp.  385,  386,  387. 

Thus,  my  brethren,  the  proof  is  abundant  that  the  an- 
cient church  did  not  admit  the  validity  of  sprinkling  only 
in  cases  of  imperious  necessity. 

I  know  that  it  is  easy  to  collect  scattering  instances  of 
sprinkling  or  pouring  in    the  third   century  and  onward, 
in   cases   of  necessity.     As   the  fathers  believed  in  the 
absolute  necessity  of  baptism  for  salvation,  they  admin- 

*  **  These  four  will  be  exceedingly  multiplied,  if  that  fiery 
trial,  through  which  books  are  obliged  to  pass  before  they  can 
receive  an  imprimatur,  be  noticed,  for  it  is  understood,  that  the 
book  is  the  voice  of  a  whole  order,  the  doctrine  of  the  whole 
churcli,  and  therefore  it  is  carefully  read  in  manuscript  by  several 
officers  appointed  on  purpose  both  by  the  orders  in  particular 
and  the  church  in  general,  before  it  is  put  to  press."  See  Rob. 
p.  385. 


36  LETTERS    ON   BAPTISM, 

istered  it  to  the  sick  and  dying,  who  were  too  weak  to 
bear  dipping,  the  best  way  they  could.  But  these  very 
fathers  would  not  allow  sprinkling  when  no  such  neces- 
sity existed.  It  is  not  fair  for  a  writer  to  collect  these  few 
cases  of  sprinkling  in  the  primitive  church,  and  then  to 
say  generally,  without  specifying  the  necessity,  that 
sprinkling  was  the  practice  of  the  first  centuries.  What 
if  these  ancient  men  did  say  that  sprinkling  was  valid  in 
given  circumstances?  Were  they  not  led  to  say  thus  be- 
cause they  superstitiously  attached  a  saving  quality  to 
baptism  ?  The  question  is  not  what  these  fallible  men  say 
will  answer  for  baptism  in  the  immediate  prospect  of 
death,  but  what  the  scriptures  have  appointed. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  IX. 

FURTHER    PROOF    THAT     OUR    DEFINITIONS    ARE    CORRECT, 
DRAWN    FROM    VARIOUS    SOURCES. 

Beloved  B  rethren. 

The  first  that  we  shall  here  mention,  is  to  be  taken 
from  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church.  This  is  a  large 
collection  of  professed  believers,  comprising  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  Christian  world.  This  church  embraces  a 
great  portion  of  the  Empire  of  Russia,  over  which  the 
illustrious  Alexander  presides.  The  New-Testament 
was  originally  written  in  Greek.  Now  the  members  of 
the  ancient  Greek  church  must  have  been  the  best  in- 
terpreters of  their  mother  tongue.  How  then  did  they 
understand  the  meaning  of  this  term  ?  Their  practice 
will  furnish  the  best  answer  to  this  question.  If  they  be- 
lieved that  the  word  baptizo  meant  to  sprinkle,  they 
would  have  practised  in  this  mode.  But  instead  of  this, 
they  have,  from  their  earliest  histor}'^  down  to  the  pres- 
ent day,  uniformly  baptized  by  immersion,  and  that  too 
in  all  the  diversified  climates  over  which  their  church  is 
spread.  Even  the  Muscovites  practise  in  this  mode,  who, 
if  coldness  of  region  will  excuse,  might  throw  in  the 
strongest  claims  to  dispense  with  immersion,  and  to  adopt, 
in  its  lieu,  sprinkling.  Now  their  steady  and  uniform 
adherence  to  this  way^  through  so  many  ages,    and  that 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  37 

tco  in  the  coldest  sections  of  their  church,  forms  an  irre- 
fragable proof,  that  they  believe  immersion  is  the  bap- 
tism which  Christ  appointed.  We  cannot  account  for 
this  adherence,  without  admitting,  that  they  believe 
they  have  no  liberty  to  depart  from  the  original  mean- 
ing of  the  word.* 

In  farther  proof,  we  appeal  to  translators.  Those  men 
who  undertook  to  translate  the  New-Testament  into  other 
languages,  ought  to  be  good  judges  of  Greek.  The 
New-Testament  has  been  translated  into  the  language  of 
the  Syrians,  Armenians,  Persians,  Romans,  Germans, 
Danes,  Swedes,  and  Dutch.  Now  linguists  tell  us,  that 
in  all  these  languages  the  word  Becyrli^a,  [baptizo)  is  trans- 
lated by  one,  which  means  to  immerse.  If  they  had  un- 
derstood this  word  to  mean  to  sprinkle,  why  did  they  not 
choose  a  word  that  would  have  expressed  that  idea?  If 
they  wished  to  establish  sprinkling,  they  were  certainly 
very  unhappy  in  selecting  a  word  to  express  this  ordi- 
nance, which  would  naturally  lead  their  readers  to  adopt 
a  different  practice. 

•  Says  Vossius,  going  to  dip  an  infant,  "  tl«at  the  word  baptize 
signifies  to  pour  as  well  as  to  dip.  In  virtue  of  this  he  takes  the 
infant,  and  neither  pours  nor  dips,  but  sprinkles,  and  then  says  to 
a  congregation  of  English  peasants,  the  Greek  will  bear  me  out." 

*■■  Suppose  an  honest  Baptist  peasant  should  stand  up  and  say  to 
such  a  man,  sir,  I  have  understood  that  Jesus  lived  and  died  in 
the  east  That  four  of  his  disciples  wrote  his  history  in  the  Greek 
language,  that  his  apostles  preached  in  Greek  to  the  inhabitants 
of  Greece,  that  the  Greeks  believed  and  were  baptized.  Every 
nation  understands  its  own  language  best  ;  and  no  doubt  the 
Greeks  understand  Greek  better  than  we  do  Now  I  have  been 
informed,  set  me  right  if  I  be  wrong,  that  from  the  first  preach- 
ing of  the  apostles  to  this  day,  the  Greeks  have  always  under- 
stood that  to  baptize,  was  to  dip.  I  do  not  understand  Greek,  but 
I  think  the  Grecians  themselves  do  If  therefore  I  were  not  to 
dip  for  other  reasons,  and  if  I  were  obliged  to  determine  my  prac- 
tice by  the  sense  of  the  single  word  baptism^  and  if  I  were  driven 
to  the  necessity  of  trusting  to  some  body,  my  reason  would  com- 
niand  me  to  take  the  sense  from  the  natives  of  Greece,  rather  than 
from  \ou.  a  foreigner"  That  this  honest  man  would  suppose  a 
true  fact  is  beyond  all  contradiction.  In  determining  the  precise 
meaning  of  a  Greek  word,  used  to  signify  a  Greek  ceremony, 
what  possible  chance  hath  a  session  of  lexicographers  against 
whole  empires  of  native  Greeks .'  Let  the  illiterate  then  enjoy 
themselves,  and  recollect,  when  they  baptize  by  dipping,  they 
understand  Greek  exactly  as  the  Greeks  themselves  understood 
it."    See  Robinson's  Researches,  pp.  91,  9i, 


38  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

In  the  Helvetic  confession  of  faith  for  the  Protestant 
churches  of  Switzerland,  drawn  up  by  the  direction  of 
Bucer  in  1536,  and  ten  years  before  the  death  of  Luther, 
and  re-published  in  1566  by  the  Pastors  of  Zurich,  we 
have  the  following  declaration  in  favour  of  immersion  : 
«'  Baptism  was  instituted  and  consecrated  by  God  ;  and 
the  first  that  baptized  was  John,  who  dipped  Christ  in  the 
"water  in  Jordan.  From  him  it  came  to  the  Apostles,  who 
also  did  baptize  with  water." 

The  confession  of  faith  adopted  by  the  Saxon  church- 
es, and  written  by  Melancthon  in  1551,  perfectly 
agrees  with  the  above.  It  says,  "  baptism  is  an  entire 
action,  to  wit,  a  dipping  and  a  pronouncing  of  these 
words,  I  baptize  thee,  Sz,c."  See  Dr.  Baldvvin''s  Letters 
to  N.  Worcester,  p.  87. 

These  two  confessions  are  not  to  be  considered  as  the 
testimony  of  two  men,  nor  of  two  churches,  but  as  the 
united  belief  of  a  number  of  churches  in  two  large  dis- 
tricts. 

The  Assembly  of  Divines,  that  body  of  men  who  com- 
posed the  catechism,  in  their  Annotations  on  Col.  ii.  12, 
*'  buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  say,  "  In  this  phrase  the 
apostle  seemeth  to  allude  to  the  ancient  manner  of  bap- 
tism, which  was  to  dip  the  parties  baptized  ;  and,  as  it 
were,  to  bury  them  under  the  water  awhile,  and  then  to 
draw  them  out  of  it,  and  lift  them  up,  to  represent  the 
burial  of  our  old  man,  and  our  resurrection  to  newness  of 
iife." 

The  concessions  of  many  Pedobaptists  afford  decisive 
proof  in  favour  of  immersion.  If  those  of  them  who 
make  these  concessions  knew  that  this  word,  in  its  natu- 
ral and  most  common  and  obvious  sense,  meant  to  sprinkle, 
it  they  knew  that  it  had  been  so  understood  all  along  in 
the  ancient  church,  and  that  sprinkling  was  the  primitive 
mode,  they  certainly  would  have  been  quick  to  see,  and 
loud  to  proclaim  all  these  fticts,  as  so  many  unanswerable 
arguments  in  favour  of  their  own  practice.  But  if  they 
concede  that  this  word  in  its  primary  signification  means 
■0  immerse,  and  that  it  was  so  understood,  and  that  im- 
mersion was  universally  observed  in  the  earhest  ages  of 
"±ristianity,  we  are  sure  that  they  would  not  make  this 
4:oncession,  unless  urged  to  it  by  the  force  of  truth  and  can- 
dour. They  were  certainly  interested  to  give  in  a  dif- 
i^rent  judgment.      Of  all  men  in  the  world,  we  should 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  39 

stippose  that  they  would  be  the  last  to  yield  so  much, 
when  consistency  and  the  reputation  of  their  own  prac- 
tice would  naturally  prompt  them  to  speak  otherwise,  if. 
they  could  see  how  an  opposite  statement  could  be  made 
in  fairness.  But  let  us  hear  what  they  say  on  this  subject. 
Says  Luther,  "  The  term  baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and 
may  be  rendered  immersion^  as  when  we  plunge  some- 
thing in  water,  that  it  may  be  entirely  covered  with 
water."  See  Judson,  p.  7,  Edit.  1st.  He  says  further, 
that  the  etymology  of  the  word  evidently  requires  im- 
mersion. Calvin  says,  "  the  very  word  baptize^  however^ 
signifies  to  immerse,  and  it  is  certain  that  immer.tion  was 
the  practice  of  the  ancient  church."  (Cal.  Inst.  B.  iv 
Ch.  15.  Sect.  19.     Allen's  translation.) 

Rogers  says,  "  None  of  old  were  wont  to  be  sprinkled  : 
and  1  confess  myself  unconvinced  by  demonstration  from 
scripture  for  infants'  sprinkling.  It  ought  to  be  the 
churches'  part  to  cleave  to  the  institution,  which  is  dip- 
ping ;  and  he  betrays  the  church,  whose  officer  he  is,  to  a- 
disorderly  error,  if  he  cleave  not  to  the  institution,  which  is 
to  dip.  That  the  minister  is  to  dip  in  water,  is  the  meet- 
est  act — the  word  baptizo  notes  it.  For  the  Greeks 
wanted  not  other  words  to  express  any  other  act  besides 
dipping,  if  the  institution  could  bear  it.  What  resem- 
blance of  the  burial  or  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  is 
there  in  sprinkling  ?  All  antiquity  and  scripture  con- 
lirm  that  way  {to  immerse.)  To  dip,  theretore,  is  ex- 
ceedingly material  to  the  ordinance,  which  was  the  usage 
of  old,  without  exception  of  countries,  hot  or  cold." 
(Booth  abridged,  p.  24.) 

"  That  immersion  was  the  practice  of  the  ancient 
church  is  so  plain,  says  Dr.  Wall,  and  clear  by  an  infinite 
number  of  passages,  that  as  one  cannot  but  pity  the  weak 
endeavours  of  such  Pedobaptists  as  would  maintain  the 
negative  of  it,  so  also  we  ought  to  disown  and  show  a 
dislike  of  the  profane  scofls  which  some  people  give  to 
the  English  Antipedobaptists,  merely  for  their  use  of  dip- 
ping. It  was  in  all  probability  the  way  in  which  our 
blessed  Saviour,  and  for  certain  was  the  most  usual  and 
ordinary  w^y,  by  which  the  ancient  christians  did  receive 
their  baptism.  It  is  a  great  want  of  prudence  as  well  as 
of  honesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to  an  adversary,  what  is 
certainly  true,  and  may  be  proved  so.  It  creates  a 
jealousy  of  all  the  rest  that  one  says.      As  for  sprinkling} 


40  LETTERS  ON    BAPTISM. 

1  say  as  Mr.  Blake  at  its  first  coming  up  in  England,  let 
them  defend  it,  who  use  it.  They  who  are  inclined  to 
Presbyterianism  are  hardly  prevailed  on  to  leave  ofl  that 
scandalous  custom  of  having  their  children,  though  never 
80  well,  baptized  out  of  a  basin  or  porringer,  in  a  bed 
chamber :  hardly  persuaded  to  bring  them  to  church  ; 
iDUch  farther  from  having  them  dipped,  though  never  so 
able  to  bear  it."  (Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism,  Part  ii.  Chap, 
ix.  p.  462.  first  edit.) 
f  I  might  swell  this  list,  and  bring  forward  Pool,  Mc' 
Knight,  Doddridge,  and  a  host  of  others,  all  testifying  to 
the  same  truth.  To  these  I  might  add  the  names  of  sev- 
eral divines  now  living,  and  who  are  the  most  dis- 
tinguished for  a  critical  knowledge  of  the  Bible  and  of 
the  history  of  the  church  ;  all  conceding  the  fact,  that 
hapiizo  means  to  immerse  in  its  most  obvious  sense,  and 
that  this  wa^  practised  universally  for  more  than  thirteen 
hundred  years  in  the  ancient  church,  saving  a  few  cases 
of  necessity.  In  proof  that  immersion  prevailed  during 
this  period,  I  will  cite  the  testimony  of  a  few  witnesses. 

Says  Stackhouse,  "  Several  authors  have  shown  that 
we  no  where  read  in  scripture  of  any  one's  being  bap- 
tized but  by  immersion,  and  from  acts  of  councils  and 
ancient  rituals  (they)  have  proved  that  this  manner  of 
immersion  continued  as  much  as  possible  to  be  used  for 
thirteen  hundred  years  after  Christ.*'  (His  Hist,  of  the 
Bible,  Book  8,  Chap.  i.  pp.  291,  292.) 

Says  Dr.  Whitby:  ""It  being  so  expressly  declared 
here,  (Rom.  vi.  4,  Col.  ii.  12,)  that  we  are  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water,  and  the 
argument  to  oblige  us  to  a  conformity  to  his  death,  by 
dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence  ;  and  this  immersion  being 
religiously  observed  by  all  churches  for  thirteen  centuries^ 
and  approved  by  our  church,  (church  of  England)  and  the 
change  of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance 
from  the  author  of  the  institution,  or  any  license  from  any 
council  of  the  church,  being  that  which  the  Romanist  still 
urgeth  to  justify  his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  laity;  it 
were  to  be  wished  that  this  custom  might  be  again  of  gen- 
eral use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted,  as  of  old,  in  cases 
of  the  clinici,  or  in  present  danger  of  death." 

Nor  was  Dr.  Whitby  alone  in  his  desire  for  the  return 
of  immersion.  Many  of  the  most  learned,  pious  and  em- 
inent divines,  yea,  the  clergy  of  England  in  general,  ex- 
pressed a  desire  for  the  return  of  this  ancient  practice. 


LETTERS    OX    BAPTISM.  41 

These  eminent  men,  in  arguing  for  the  restoration  of  im- 
mersion, plead  the  sense  of  this  word ;  they  plead  the 
ancient  usage  of  the  church,  and  even  the  practice  of 
the  church  in  their  own  time.  To  the  advocates  of 
sprinkling  they  said :  "  Divide  the  christian  v/orld  into 
three  parts,  and  you  will  find  that  all  Asia,  all  Africa,  and 
one  third  part  of  Europe,  do  at  this  day  baptize  by  im- 
mersion."    (See  Stackhouse's  Body  of  Divinity.) 

Says  Wall—"  France  seems  to  have  been  the  first  coun« 
try  in  the  world  where  baptism  by  aflfusion  was  used  or- 
dinarily to  persons  in  health,  and  in  the  public  way  of  ad- 
ministering it.  It  being  allowed  to  weak  children  (in  the 
reign  of  Elizabeth)  to  be  baptized  by  aspersion,  many  fond 
ladies  and  gentlewomen  first,  and  then  by  degrees,  the 
common  people  would  obtain  the  favour  of  the  priest  to 
have  their  children  pass  for  weak  children,  too  tender  to 
endure  dipping  in  the  water.  As  for  sprinkling,  properly 
so  called,  it  seems  it  was  at  sixteen  hundred  and  forty-five, 
just  then  beginning  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must  have 
begun  in  the  disorderly  times  after  forty-one.  They  (the 
assembly  of  divines  in  Westminster)  reformed  the  font 
into  a  basin.  This  learned  assembly  could  not  remem- 
ber that  fonts  to  baptize  in  had  been  always  used  by  the 
primitive  christians,  long  before  the  beginning  of  popery, 
and  ever  since  churches  were  built ;  but  that  sprinkling, 
for  the  common  use  of  baptizing,  was  really  introduced 
(in  France  first,  and  then  in  other  popish  countries)  m 
limes  of  popery.  And  that  accordingly  all  those  coun- 
tries in  which  the  usurped  power  of  the  pope  is  or  has 
been  formerly  owned,  have  left  off  dipping  of  children  ia 
the  font ;  but  that  all  other  countries  in  the  world,  which 
had  never  regarded  his  authority,  do  still  use  it,  and  that 
basins,  except  in  cases  of  necessity,  were  never  used  by 
Papists  or  any  other  christians  whatever,  till  by  them- 
selves." "The  way  that  is  now  ordinarily  used  we  can- 
not deny  to  have  been  a  novelty,  brought  into  this  church 
by  those  that  had  learned  it  in  Germany,  or  at  Geneva. 
And  they  were  not  content  to  follow  the  example  of 
pouring  a  quantity  of  water,  (which  had  there  been  in- 
troduced, instead  of  sprinkling)  but  improved  it,  if  I  may 
so  abuse  that  word,  from  pouring  to  sprinkling,  that  it 
might  have  as  little  resemblance  of  the  ancient  way  of 
baptizing  as  possible."* 

♦  Hist,  of  Inf.  Patt  2nd,  Chap.  9, 
D   2 


42  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISBI. 

By  this  quotation  you  see  that  the  assembly  of  divines 
were  the  first  ecclesiastical  body  in  England,  that  author- 
ized sprinkling  for  general  use  in  lieu  of  inrimersion. 
When  the  mode  of  baptism  was  debated  in  that  body,  the 
question  was  called,  whether  they  would  retain  im- 
mersion, or  adopt  sprinkling — the  assembly  were  nearly 
divided,  25  voted  for  sprinkling,  and  24  voted  against  it. 
The  vote  for  sprinkling,  was  finally  carried  through  the 
influence  of  Dr.  Lightfoot.  Had  it  not  been  for  the  in- 
iluence  of  this  one  man,  immersion  in  all  probability 
would  have  been  retained.  Had  it  not  been  for  him,  the 
question  in  their  catechism.  What  is  baptism  ?  would 
most  likely  have  been  answered  thus,*  "  baptism  is  a  sa- 
crament, in  which  the  subject  is  immersed  in  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,"  &;c.  so,  for  ought  we  can  say,  this 
practice  would  have  been  continued  to  this  very  da}^ 

Thus,  my  brethren,  in  favour  of  immersion  you  have 
many  arguments.  In  support  of  it  you  have  the  first  and 
most  obvious  meaning  of  the  word,  employed  to  express 
this  rite;  you  have  the  places  chosen  for  its  administration, 
in  .Jordan,  in  rivers,  in  places  where  there  was  much 
water,  and  in  baptisteries;  you  have  the  language  em- 
ployed in  its  description,  going  down  into  the  water,  and 
coming  up  out  of  it,  being  buried  and  raised  with- 
Christ  in  baptism,  having  our  bodies  washed  in  pure 
water;  you  have  the  testimony  and  concessions  of  the 
ablest  Pedobaptist  writers  in  favour  of  this  practice  ; 
yea,  you  have  the  united  voice  of  the  whole  church, 
whether  Greek  or  Roman,  in  favour  of  immersion,  for 
more  than  thirteen  hundred  years.  When  we  take  into 
consideration,  that  the  Greek,  the  Armenian,  the  Geor- 
gian and  Nestorian  churches,  and  all  the  oriental  church- 
es, which  have  never  acknowledged  the  papal  power, 
have  throughout  their  whole  history  practised  in  this 
way  ;  and  when  we  farther  reflect  on  the  number  of  the 
Baptists,  now  scattered  through  the  christian  world,  we 
are  sure  that  a  great  portion,  if  not  half  the  professed  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  do  at  this  very  hour  adhere  to  immersion. 

If,  my  friends,  you  can  adduce  proofs  in  favour  of  sprink- 
ling that  will  fairly  outweigh  all  these  arguments,  you 
will  without  doubt  practise  accordingly. 

I  am,  &c. 

•S«e  note  in  Neal's  Hist,  of  Pup.  p.  169. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  43 


LETTER   X. 

OBJECTIONS    TO    THE    FOREGOING    REASONS    STATED    AND    AN- 
SWERED. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

To  the  preceding  arsfuments  it  may  be  objected,  that 
the  words  bapto  and  baptizo^  do  not  in  scripture  in  their 
literal  application  mean  an  entire  wetting  by  immersion. 
In  support  of  this  objection,  several  passages  are  adduc- 
ed. Lev.  xiv.  6.  "  As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take 
it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop, 
and  shall  dip  fix-^ih  {bapsei)  them  in  the  blood  of  the 
bird,  that  was  killed  over  the  running  water."  Here 
the  word  fiecif/u  (bapsei)  dip,  Dr.  Wall  and  some  others 
say  cannot  mean  immersion.  "For,*'  says  Wall,  "the 
blood  of  the  bird  in  the  basin  could  not  be  enough  to  re- 
ceive the  living  bird  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scar- 
let, and  the  hyssop  all  into  it."  See  his  History  of  In- 
fant Baptism,  part  2nd,  p.  221. 

This  objection  is  grounded  on  a  mistake.  It  supposes, 
that  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird  was  preserved  by  itself, 
and  therefore  could  not  receive  the  bulky  sprinkler, 
formed  of  the  several  prescribed  articles.  But  the  fact 
was,  the  bird  was  slain  in  an  earthen  vessel,  containing  a 
considerable  quantity  of  running  or  living  water.  Into 
this  water  the  blood  fell  and  mixed,  so  that  the  quantity 
of  this  sanguineous  liquid  was  abundantly  sufficient  to  ad- 
mit the  sponge  by  dipping.  See  verse  5 — "  And  the 
priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds  be  killed  ia 
an  earthen  vessel  over  running,  or  living  water,  which 
it  contained."  See  also  the  5 1st  verse  of  this  chapter. 
Indeed  a  little  reflection  will  teach  us  that  the  blood  of 
the  slain  bird,  not  being  more  than  a  spoonful  or  two, 
could  not  alone  wet  a  large  sponge  sufficiently  to  sprin- 
kle a  person  and  a  whole  house  seven  times  over.  The 
word  i3«^6<,  {bapsei)  therefore,  in  the  above  text  most 
certainly  means  to  dip^  but  not  to  pour  or  sprinkle 

Another  text  in  support  of  the  above  objection  is  tak- 
en from  Ezek,  xxiii.  15.  "Girded  with  girdles  upon  their 
loins,  exceeding  in  dyed  attire  upon  th  '^  heads.'*  Here 
the  word  dyed  in  the  septuagint  is  Trupa^uTrlec-  [parabapta  ;) 
heuce  some  say,  that  this  word  meaos  lo  dye,  as  wtU  as 


44  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

to  dip.  But  this  objection  will  lose  all  its  force,  when 
we  reflect  that  the  ancient  "  Greeks  very  frequently  ap- 
plied the  word,  in  all  its  various  forms,  to  the  dyer's  art, 
so  as  to  innply  and  refer  only  to  its  true  natural  significa- 
tion, to  dip."  Besides,  the  "  Grecians  made  a  difference 
between  dye  and  other  colouring  matter.  Thus  Plu- 
tarch distinguishes  between  xi»fiecix,  {chromata)  and 
^otf^^e^u^  {bammata).  The  latter  word  signifies  only  that 
sort  of  colouring,  into  which  any  thing  is  dipped,  accord- 
ing to  the  sense  of  the  word."  See  Gale's  Reflections,  pp. 
101,  and  103.  In  the  Hebrew  of  this  verse  the  word 
translated  dye^  is  b^D,  which  Parkhurst  says  means  to  dip, 
immerge,  to  plunge,  and  to  dye  with  a  certain  color, 
which  is  usually  performed  hy  dipping.  See  his  Lexi- 
con. The  LXX  translated  this  word  into  the  Greek  word 
rret^et'^ccTrlx,  (parabapta)  which  also  signifies  dipped.  Hence 
if  this  word  had  been  rendered  in  our  English  bibles, 
dipped  garment,  the  translation  would  have  been  literal 
and  correct.  In  this  case  no  one  would  have  thought 
that  the  passage  countenances  sprinkling,  or  pouring.  I 
do  not  object  to  the  present  version.  For  the  phrase 
dyed  garments^  involves  the  idea  of  dipping,  because  cloth 
is  dyed,  not  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  but  by  dipping. 
This  text,  then,  most  certainly  makes  in  our  favour,  but 
gives  no  support  to  those  of  a  different  practice. 

Should  any  one  quote  Daniel  iv.  33,  and  v.  21,  as  proof 
that  the  word  /iuTrra  {bapio)  means  to  sprinkle,  we  reply, 
that  the  word  here  is  without  doubt  used  figuratively,  and 
designed  to  express  more  emphatically  the  entire  wet- 
ting, which  Nebuchadnezzar  should  receive  from  the 
great  dews  of  Chaldea,  by  saying,  that  he  should  lie  in 
dew,  and  be  covered  with  it  all  over,  as  if  he  had  been 
dipped. 

That  this  word  means  to  dip,  is  evident  from  the  follow- 
ing passages  :  Exo.  xii.  22.  ^^  And  ye  shall  take  a  bunch  of 
Ijyssop  and  dip  it,  &c.  Lev.  iv.  6.  And  the  priest  shall  dip 
his  finger,  &c.  verse  17.  And  the  priest  shall  dip  his  fin- 
ger in  some  of  the  blood.  Chapter  ix.  9.  And  he  dipped 
his  finger  in  the  blood.  Chap.  xi.  32.  Whatsoever  vessel 
it  be,  it  must  be  put  into  water.  Chap.  xiv.  6,  16,  51. 
Num.  xix.  18.  And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and 
dip  it  in  the  water,  &c.  Deut.  xxxiii.  24.  Let  him  dip  bis 
foot  in  oil,  &c.  Josh.  iii.  15.  And  the  feet  of  the  priests 
were  dipped  in  the  brim  of  the  water,  &c.    Ruth  ii,  J 4/ 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  45 

Dip  thy  morsel  in  the  vinegar.  1  Sam.  xiv.  27.  And  dip- 
ped it  in  an  honey-comb.  2  Kings  v.  14.  Then  went  he 
down  and  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan.  Chap, 
viii.  15.  He  took  a  thick  cloth,  and  dipped  it  in  water. 
Jobix.  31.  Yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me  in  the  ditch.  Psalm 
Ixviii.  23.  That  thy  foot  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood,  &c.'' 
These  words  bapto  and  haptizo  occur  in  the  septuagint 
about  twenty-one  times.  Having  attended  to  the  most 
considerable  texts  in  the  Old  Testament  on  this  subject, 
and  having  shewn  that  these  words  in  their  literal  sense 
mean  to  dip  or  immerse,  and  not  to  sprinkle  or  pour,  we 
will  now  advance  to  the  New. 

Here  one  of  the  most  plausible  passages,  brought  against 
us,  is  found  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  '•  Which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drink,  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances." 
Here  the  Greek  is  ^u^Tisf^-cii  ^  {baptismois ;)  the  correct 
translation  of  the  phrase  is,  divers  immersions.  So  Grotius^ 
Whitby  and  Mc'Knight,  understand  the  passage.  Had  it 
been  so  rendered,  no  one  one  would  have  thought  that 
this  text  favoured  sprinkling.  But  as  the  Levitical  law- 
enjoined  divers  immersions,  how  do  we  know  but  that 
Paul  had  exclusive  reference  to  these?  He  might  in- 
clude the  various  sprinklings  in  the  clause,  "  carnal  or- 
dinances." In  the  seventh  chapter  of  this  epistle,  he 
calls  the  law,  which  prescribed  the  ceremony  of  indue-' 
tion  into  the  priest's  office,  k  carnal  commandment.  See 
verse  16.  This  law  we  know  required  sprinkling,  shav- 
ing, washing  the  clothes,  and  cleansing  the  body.  Still  it 
was  called  a  carnal  commandment.  As  the  Apostle  here 
certainly  meant  to  comprise  sprinkling,  and  washing 
clothes,  and  cleansing  the  flesh,  in  the  phrase  carnal  com' 
mandrnent.,  why  is  it  not  true  to  say,  that  by  carnal  or- 
dinances, he  might  refer  to  the  various  sprinklings  and  sa- 
crifices of  the  Jewish  ritual  ? 

But  let  us  proceed  to  mention  some  of  the  numerous 
and  divers  immersions  required  by  the  law.  When  detil- 
ed  by  the  touch  of  a  dead  body,  all  manner  of  wooden 
vessels,  all  kinds  of  raiment,  all  skins,  all  sacks,  and  what- 
soever vessel  it  be,  in  which  any  work  tvas  done,  all  must 
be  baptized,  or  put  into  water.  See  Leviticus  xi.  32. 
Birds,  cedar  wood,  scarlet  and  hyssop,  were  to  be  dipped 
in  blood  and  water,  See  Lev.  xiv.  6.  Various  things 
taken  in  war  with  Gentile  nations,  and  which  would  not 
abide  the  fire,  were  to  be  put  in,  or  made  to  pass  through 


46  LETTERS   ON    BAPTISM. 

the  water.  See  Num.  xxxi.  23.  Priests,  lepers,  and 
persons  who  were  defiled  by  the  touch  of  a  bone,  or  a 
dead  body,  were  to  bathe  or  immerse  their  bodies  in 
water.  See  Lev.  xiv.  8.  Num.  xix.  7  and  19.  Gill, 
Gale,  Dr.  Reed  and  many  others,  say  that  these  bathings 
were  performed  by  immersion. 

Now  these  divers  immersions  must  occur  very  fre- 
quently. If  the  dead  body  of  a  weasel,  or  mouse,  or 
tortoise,  or  ferret,  or  chameleon,  or  lizard,  or  snail,  or 
mole,  touched  any  vessel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or  skin, 
or  sack,  and  whatsoever  vessel  in  which  work  was  done, 
were  all  to  be  immersed.  When  a  person  died  in  a  tent, 
every  thing  and  person  in  it  were  rendered  unclean. 
Whoever  in  the  confusion  of  battle  touched  one  that  was 
slain  with  the  sword,  or  a  dead  body  of  a  man  or  beast,  or 
even  a  bone  or  a  grave,  was  unclean,  and  must  bathe  in 
water.  In  every  conquest  a  very  large  portion  of  their  spoils 
must  be  made  to  pass  through  the  water,  or  be  dipped. 
See  Lev.  xi.  30,  31,  32,  and  Num.  xxxi.  21,  22,  23. 

Thus  you  see,  my  brethren,  that  under  the  law,  divers 
immersions  must  have  happened  very  frequently,  and 
they  were  administered  for  divers  purposes.  Well  might 
the  apostle  say,  that  the  ancient  economy  stood  in  divers 
immersions,  and  yet  in  this  phrase  have  no  reference  to 
sprinkling.  If,  as  our  opponents  say,  the  apostle  meant 
to  express  the  various  sprinklings  of  the  law  by  the  words, 
hec<pcpois  /iecTTTKr/^oti;^  {diaphorois  baptismois)  translated  divers 
washings.^  why  did  he  not  in  the  subsequent  parts  of  the 
chapter  continue  to  employ  the  same  word,  when  he 
<5pake  of  sprinkling  ?  If  this  term  would  naturally  express 
the  idea  of  sprinkling  in  one  place,  it  would  in  another. 
But  let  us  look  over  the  chapter  and  see  if  he  retained 
this  word.  See  verse  13.  "For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling, 
^»yTi^ov(rec  [rantizousa^]  not /iaTrno'^ioie  (baptismois) .  Ver.  19. 
Moses — sprinkled  ifp«vT«r£  [errantise)  hoth  the  book,  &c. 
Verse  21,  "Moreover  he  sprinkled,  «pp«vT^(r£,  [errantise) 
likewise  with  blood  both  the  tahernacle,*'  &c.  His 
steady  use  of  the  word  pecyn^ta,  (rantizo)  to  express 
sprinkling  in  this  chapter,  is  strong  proof  that  he  well 
knew  the  word  bapiizo  meant  something  quite  different, 
viz.  to  immerse.  This  latter  word,  Campbell  says  never 
means  to  sprinkle,  either  in  sacred  or  classical  writer^. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  47 

In  support  of  the  above  objection,  the  passage  in  Luke 
xi.  38,  is  cited,  '•  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  mar- 
velled, that  he  had  not  first  washed  before  dinner."  The 
original  word  is  iox'Tinr^n^  (ebaptisthe).  It  is  not  said  in 
these  words,  what  wa«  baptized,  whether  the  hand  or  the 
entire  body  It  is  supposed,  however,  by  some,  that  the 
inspired  penman  had  particular  reference  to  the  washing 
of  hands,  and  that  this  passage  is  parallel  to  the  one  in 
Mark  vii.  3,  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not."  The  original  is 
iciv  jt6^  TFvyfin  vi'^mreci  reci  KU^ecg,  yx  itBujo-i  :  that  is,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  up  to  the  wrist,  or  elbow,  they  eat 
not.*  This  mode  of  washing  was  performed  most  likely 
by  first  dipping  their  hands  into  the  water.  Of  this  opin- 
ion was  Dr.  Pocock.  His  woids  are  these  :  "The great- 
est and  most  notorious  uncleanness  of  the  hands  reached 
but  to  the  perek,  or  the  wrist,  and  was  cleansed  by  im- 
mersing or  dipping  them  up  so  high."  Dr.  Hammond  is 
of  the  same  opinion,  and  determines  this  to  be  the  sense 
of  this  passage.  Says  he,  "Washing  of  any  part,  as  the 
hands  here,  by  way  of  immersion  in  water,  as  that  is  op- 
posed to  affusion  or  pouring  water  on  them."  See  Gale^ 
pp.  158,  159. 

Again,  it  is  said  that  the  washing,  performed  by  the 
Jews  when  they  returned  from  market,  was  not  a  cleans- 
ing of  the  whole  body,  but  only  a  partial  application  of 
water.     See  Mark  vii.  4. 

In  reply  to  this,  we  observe,  that  the  law  of  God  re- 
quired the  Priests,  when  defiled,  to  bathe  in  water  before 
they  eat  of  the  holy  things.  See  Lev.  xxii.  6.  "  The 
soul  which  hath  touched  any  such,  shall  be  unclean  until 
even,  and  shall  not  eat  of  the  holy  things,  unless  he  wash 
his  tlesh  with  water."  Now  is  it  not  rational  to  suppose^ 
that  the  common  people  in  cleansing  their  bodies  would 
follow  the  example  of  their  religious  teachers,  and  bathe 
their  flesh  in  water  ?  That  the  more  superstitious  Jews 
did  immerse  their  whole  bodies  when  they  returned  from 
the  market,  is  confirmed  by  the  best  critics.  Vatablus, 
on  this  text,  remarks,  "  They  (the  Jews)  washed  them- 
selves all  over."  See  Gale,  p.  164.  Grotius,  in  com- 
menting on  this  place,  says,  "They  were  more  solicitous 
to  cleanse  themselves  from  the  defilement  they  had  con- 

•  See  Gill  on  this  passage. 


48  LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM. 

Iracted  in  the  market,  and  therefore  they  not  only  washed 
their  hands,  but  immersed  their  whole  bodies."  See 
him  in  loco. 

Some  suppose  that  the  baptism  of  pots,  cups,  tables 
and  brazen  vessels,  was  not  performed  by  immersion,  but 
by  pouring  and  rubbing.  In  reply,  we  remark,  that  all 
wooden  vessels  which  were  defiled,  were,  by  the  law  of 
God,  to  be  put  into  water.  See  Lev.  xi.  S2.  Earthen 
vessels,  when  defiled,  were  to  be  broken,  and  brazen  ones 
were  to  be  purified  by  fire,  and  then  made  to  pass  through 
the  water.  Both  the  law  of  God  and  the  tradition  of  the 
elders  required  that  defiled  vessels  should  be  put  into 
water.  Their  tables  were  not  three  nor  four  footed, 
like  ours  at  this  day,  but  they  were  couches,  on  which 
they  leaned  at  their  meals.  And  these  couches,  or  tables 
as  they  are  called,  were  not  washed  by  having  water 
sprinkled  or  poured  upon  them,  but  by  being  put  into 
water,  as  other  clothes  were  washed.*  Some  have  main- 
tained, that  the  text  in  Isaiah  lij.  15,  "so  shall  he  sprin- 
kle many  nations,"  gives  countenance  to  that  mode  of 
applying  water.  But  the  scholar,  who  will  consult  the 
original  text,  will  at  ouce  discard  this  passage  as  afford- 
ing any  support  to  sprinkling. 

The  Hebrew  word  in  this  verse  is  n^a*!,  which  is  ren- 
dered sprinkle.  But  it  literally  means  to  increase,  and 
by  consequence,  to  make  to  rejoice,  or  to  exult.  See 
Simonis'  Heb.  Lex.  The  LXX  translated  this  word  into 
^uvfiTovrcch  ithaumsontai)  which  signifies  either  to  astonish, 
or  to  cause  to  exult  or  rejoice.  But  in  no  instance  is  it 
equivalent  to  sprinkle^  as  is  known  by  all  who  understand 
the  Greek  language. 

/Christ,  by  the  greatness  of  his  suffering,  would  astonish 
many  nations,  or,  when  they  saw  the  design  of  his  vicari- 
ous death,  would  rejoice  or  exult  in  hope  of  eternal  life. 
This  seems  to  be  the  sense  of  the  passage.  Our  transla- 
tors, perhaps,  rendered  this  word  as  they  did,  because 
they  well  knew  that  to  sprinkle  fragrant  waters  on  visit- 
ers, was  the  customary  mode  of  doing  respectful  and  kind 
honours  to  guests,  through  the  east.  See  Burder's  Ori- 
ent   Gust  p^    199. 

It  is  also  objected,  that  the  three  thousand  could  not  be 
baptized  by  immersion,  for  the   want  of  time.     It  is  said 

*  The  Jev/ish  cman  r.tn  thus  :  "  A  bed  that  is  wholly  defiled, 
if  he  dip  it  part  by  part,  is  pure."    See  Gill  on  the  text. ' 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  49 

that  the  day  was  considerably  advanced  before  Peter  be- 
gan his  famous  sermon,  and  that  after  public  services, 
the  lime  was  too  far  spent  to  admit  on  that  day  the  bap- 
tism of  such  a  vast  number. 

In  reply,  we  observe,  that  on  supposition  there  were 
only  12  administrators,  (you  will  recollect  that  before  this 
event,  Matthias  filled  the  place  of  Judas)  allowing  them 
250  each,  the  twelfth  part  of  3000,  and  six  hours  to  per- 
form the  ceremony,  they  would  have  to  baptize  about  41 
an  hour.  But  on  supposition  the  seventy-two  disciples 
were  present,  whom  Christ  had  before  commissioned  to 
baptize,  as  in  all  probability  they  were,  then  the  portion 
of  each  would  not  be  quite  43  ;  and  allowing  them  three 
hours  time,  they  would  have  only  about  14  to  immerse, 
only  one  in  13  minutes. 

But  setting  aside  the  above  Calculation,  we  will  engage 
to  answer  this  object  ion  as  soon  as  any  one  will  inform  us 
how  Abraham  could,  in  the  short  space  of  one  day,  cir- 
cumcise, after  this  rite  was  performed  upon  himself,  be- 
tween three  and  four  hundred  males.  See  Gen.  xvii,  2S. 
*' And  Abraham  took  Ishmael  his  son,  and  all  that  were 
born  in  his  house,  and  all  that  were  bought  with  money, 
every  male  among  the  men  of  Abraham's  house,  and  cir- 
cumcised the  flesh  of  their  fore-skin,  the  self-same  day."^* 
Before  this  we  are  informed  that  he  had  318  trained  ser- 
vants born  in  his  house.  Now  should  we  add  to  those 
318  all  the  males,  who  were  bought  with  money,  and  all, 
who  were  either  too  old  or  too  young  to  bear  arms,  the 
number  of  males  in  his  household  would  be  much  enlarg- 
ed. When  therefore  we  are  told  how  Abraham  in  one  day 
could  perform  this  rite  on  so  large  a  number,  we  shall  be 
prepared  to  tell  how  the  12,  or  72  disciples,  in  six,  or 
three  hours,  could  baptize  3000. 

It  is  also  said  that  in  Jerusalem  the  disciples  could  not 
have  found  conveniences  for  the  purpose  of  dipping.  It 
is  argued  that  the  angry  Jews  would  not  allow  them  ad- 
mission to  any  of  their  places  of  worship. 

In  answer,  we  remark,  that  the  primitive  christians 
were  not  excluded  the  temple,  nor  from  the  public  places 
of  bathing.  See  Acts  v.  20,  25,  and  42.  "  And  daily  in 
the  temple  and  in  every  place,  they  ceased  not  to  teach 
and  preach  Jesus  Christ." — "Go  stand  and  speak  in  the 
temple  all  the  words  of  this  life.-^Then  came  one  and  told 


50  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

them,  saying,  behold  the  men  whom  ye  put  in  prison,  are 
standing  in  the  temple,  and  teaching  the  people." 

May  we  not  rationally  suppose,  that  the  apostles  could 
easily  find  accommodations  for  immersion  in  this  great 
city,  and  among  a  people  who,  by  their  sacred  laws,  were 
subjected  to  various  bathings  ? 

Says   Dr.  Gill,  "  In  the  city  of  Jerusalem,  in  private 
houses,  they  had  their  baths  for  purifications,  by  immer- 
sion, as  in  the  case  of  defilements,  by  touching  unclean 
persons  and  things,  which  were  very  frequent ;  so  that  a 
digger  of  cisterns,  for  such  uses,   and  others,  was  a  busi- 
ness in  Jerusalem.     And  in  the  temple  there  was   an  a- 
partment,    called  the   dipping  place  or  room^  where  the 
high  priest  dipped  himself  on  the  day  of  atonement.     And 
besides   these  there   were  ten  lavers  of  brass,   made  by 
Solomon  ;  and  every  laver  held  forty  baths  of  water,   and 
each  was  four  cubits  broad  and  long,  sufficient  for  immer- 
sion of  the  whole  body  of  a  man.  Add  to  this,  that  there  was 
the  molten  sea  also   for  the  priests  to  wash  in,  (2  Chron. 
iv.  6,)   which  was  done  by  immersion ;  on   which  one  of 
the  Jewish   commentators  has  these  words :  "  The   sea 
was /or  the  dipping  of  the  priests  ;  for  in  the   midst  of  it 
they  dipped  themselves  from  their  uncleanness ;  but  in 
the  Jerusalem  Talmud,  there  is  an  objection,  is  it  not  a 
vessel  ?  as  if  it  was  said,  how  can  they  dip  in  it,  for  is  it 
not  a  vessel  ?  and  there  is  no  dipping  in  vessels :  R.  Josh- 
ua ben  Levi  replied,  a  pipe  of  water  was  laid  to  it  from 
the  fountain  of  Etam,  and  the  feet  of  the  oxen,  which 
were  under  the  molten  sea,  were  open  at  the  pomegra- 
nates; so  that  it  was  as  if  it  was  from  under  the  earth, 
and  the  waters  came  to  it,  and  entered,  and  ascended,  by 
the  way  of  the   feet  of  the  oxen,   which  were  open  be- 
neath them  and  bored." — And  it  may  be   observed,  that 
there  was  also  in  Jerusalem  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  into 
which  persons  went  down  at  certain  times,  (John  v.  i,)  and 
the   pool  of  Siloam,  where   persons  bathed  and  dipped 
themselves,   on  certain  occasions.     So  that  there   were 
conveniences  enough  for  baptim  by  immersion  in  this 
place."     Gill  on  Acts  ii.  41. 

"  We  who  are  so  little  used  to  washing  the  whole  body, 
either  in  a  common  or  religious  way,  are  apt  to  wonder 
where,  and  how,  such  prodigious  numbers,  as  are  mention- 
ed in  the  JVew  Testament  to  be  baptized,  could  be  accom- 
modated if  they  were  immerged  in  water  ?  But  it  needs 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  51 

only  to  be  considered,  the  principal  scene  of  baptism  lay 
in  a  country,  where  immersion  was  quite  familiar,^  and 
must,  by  the  very  laws  of  their  religion,  come  into  daily 
use  through  all  parts  of  the  land  ;  and  then  the  wonder  will 
cease.  For,  as  Bishop  Patrick  observes,  '-'•  there  are  so 
many  washings  prescribed  [in  the  law  of  jMoses]  that  it  is 
reasonable  to  believe,  there  were  not  only  at  Jerusalem^ 
and  in  all  other  cities,  but  in  every  village,  several  bathing 
places  contrived  for  these  legal  purifications,  that  men 
might,  without  much  labour,  be  capable  to  fulfil  these 
precepts."     Comment,  on  Lev.  xv.  12.* 

It  is  said  that  John*s  baptism  was  legal ;  and  therefore 
never  was  designed  for  an  example  to  regulate  gospel 
baptism. 

In  proof  that  John's  baptism  belonged  to  the  gospel 
dispensation,  we  shall  offer  only  two  arguments,  viz. — 

1.  We  believe  John's  ministry  was  the  beginning  of 
the  gospel  of  the  Son  of  God,  because  it  is  declared  so  to 
be  by  the  mouth  of  inspiration.  See  Mark  i.  1,2,  3, 
^i-The  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God.  As  it  is  written  in  the  prophets,  behold  I  send  my 
messenger  before  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way 
before  thee.  The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight." 

On  these  words,  Mr.  Scott  observes  thus : — ^^  Thia 
was  in  fact  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  the  introduction  of 
the  Kew-Testament  dispensation,  the  opening  of  the  glad 
tidings,  relating  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  anointed  Saviour,  the 
incarnate  Son  of  God.'* 

'•The  history  of  John  the  Baptist,  "says  Whitby,  "is 
styled  the  beginning  of  the  gospel,  because  he  began  bis 
otfice  by  preaching  repentance,  as  the  preparation  to  re- 
ceive it,  and  faith  in  the  Messiah  as  the  subjects  of  it." 
See  Scott's  Note  on  the  passage. 

Observe,  my  brethren,  that  the  inspired  penman  doth 
not  here  say,  that  John's  ministry  was  the  protraction  of 
the  Levitical  economy,  nor  the  commencement  of  an  in- 
termediate and  temporary  dispensation,  but  the  beginning 
of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  Would  the  evangelist 
characterize  the  ministry  of  John,  by  saying,  that  it  was 
the  voice  which  proclaimed  glad  tidings,  when  in  fact  he 
meant  to  say,  that  it  was  the  same  voice  which  had  long 
been  heard  from  Sinai,  enforcing  the  law  with  ail  its  tre- 
mendous sanctions  ? 

•  Foot's  Let.  p.  29. 


52  LETTERS    ON   BAPTISM. 

Why  is  it,  my  brethren,  that  there  is  such  an  effort 
made  to  confine  John  in  the  dark  dispensation  of  the  law? 
Is  it  because  his  ministry  frowns  so  heavily  on  modern 
practices  ?  Had  he  sprinkled  parents  and  their  infants,  do 
you  imagine  that  his  conduct  would  never  have  been 
drawn  into  a  precedent,  or  example,  to  sanction  the  cer- 
emonies of  Pedobaptists  ?  Would  they  have  said  to  all 
writers  on  their  ground,  you  must  not  avail  yourselves 
of  the  conduct  of  John  in  baptism,  because  he  was  a  Le- 
vitical  priest,  and  not  a  minister  of  the  gospel  ? 

If  John  belonged  to  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  if 
Christ  was  baptized  by  him  to  fulfil  the  Levitical  law,  as 
many  say,  then  it  will  follow  that  Christ  was  a  priest  after 
the  Aaronic  order,  and  not  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec. 
But,  my  brethren,  this  reasoning  carries  us  abreast  to  the 
arguments  of  Paul,  in  the  7th  of  Heb.  He  there  tells  us 
that  Christ  was  made  a  priest,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal 
commandment^  but  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec.  See 
verses  16  and  17. 

My  second  argument,  in  proof  that  John's  ministry  be- 
longed to  the  gospel  dispensation,  is  taken  from  the  cal- 
culations of  Dr.  Prideaux.  In  explaining  the  prophecy 
of  Daniel's  seven  weeks,  and  the  three  score  and  two 
weeks,*  or  the  483  years  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
commandment  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem  unto  Mes- 
siah, the  Prince,  he  says,  "  This  will  lead  us  down 
to  the  year  of  the  Julian  period,  4739,  which  was 
the  very  year  in  which  the  ministry  of  the  gospel  first 
began.  This  Christ  executed  at  first,  and  therein  made 
his  appearance  as  the  Messiah,  by  his  forerunner,  John 
the  Baptist,  for  the  space  of  three  years  and  an  half,  and 
after  that,  by  himself  in  his  own  person,  for  three  years 
and  an  half  more.  And'  these  two  being  put  together, 
make  up  the  last  week  of  this  prophecy,  which  began  ex- 
actly at  the  ending  of  the  said  sixty-two  weeks.  And 
therefore  here  the  prophecy  concerning  the  coming  of 
the  Messiah  had  its  completion.  St.  Luke  tells  us,t 
"The  word  of  God  first  came  to  John,  in  the  fifteenth 
year  of  Tiberius  Caesar,*"  emperor  of  Rome.  And  from 
the  coming  of  that  word  to  John,  and  his  preaching  of 
it  to  the  Jews,J  was  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  first  appearance  of  his  kingdom  here   on 

•  Dan.  ix.  25.  |  Chap.  iii.  1,  2,  X  Mark  i.  1. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  53 

earth.  And  this  Christ  himself  tells  us  :  for  his  words 
are,  (Luke  xvi.  16,)  "  The  law  and  the  prophets  were 
until  John  ;  since  that,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached." 
That  is,  the  Jewish  economy,  under  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, lasted  until  the  coming  of  John,  and  his  preaching 
of  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
But  from  the  time  of  his  coming  on  this  ministry,  which 
was  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah began.  For,  as  in  the  gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  hj'  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  so  here  by  the  kingdom  of  God,* 
is  meant  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  the  church  of 
Christ,  which  he  hath  here  established  among  us.  And 
therefore  this  kingdom  thus  beginning  with  the  preach- 
ing of  John,  there  must  we  necessarily  place  the  first 
coming  oi  that  King,  Christ  our  Lord,  who  founded  this 
his  kingdom  here  among  us."  Prideaux's  Connections, 
vol.  2.  pp.  53^  54. 

Thus,  according  to  the  calculations  of  this  laborious 
divine,  this  prophecy  of  Daniel  cannot  be  explained  only 
by  admitting  that  John's  ministry  was  the  beginning  of  the 
gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God. 

I  am,  brethren,  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XL 

REMARKS    ON  THE    REASONS    ASSIGNED    TO    JUSTIFY    THE  CHANGE 
OF    IMMERSION    INTO    SPRINKLING. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

In  attending  to  the  subject  of  this  Letter,  I  cannot  do  bet- 
ter than  to  submit  for  your  consideration,  the  opinions  of 
several  distinguished  writers.  If  1  should  discuss  the  sub- 
ject anew,  1  should  exhibit  the  same  arguments,  dressed 
in  my  own  language.  1  will  also  premise,  that  in  this  Let- 
ter I  have  reference  to  that  class  of  Pedobaptists  who  ad- 
mit that  immersion  was  the  instituted  mode,  but  say  that 
the  original  law  was  not  inflexible,  but  was  to  vary  so  as 
to  accommodate  itself  to  changing  customs  and  climates. 
E  2 

*  Vide    Grotii  Annotationes  in  secundum  caput   Mattbaei,   et 
Xightfooti.    Uoras  Hebraicas  ftd  euadem  locum. 


,54  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

Says  Mr.  Foot,  in  his  Letters  to  Bishop  Hoadly, "  I  come 
now,  ray  lord,  to  what  was  promised  in  the  last  Letter,  viz. 
to  consider  the  excuse  of  those  who,  thoughjthey  confess 
the  scriptural  baptism  to  be  immersion^  yet  apologize  for 
a  departure  from  it  :  and  of  two  quite  different  distinct 
laws  and  institutions,  put  one  in  the  room  of  the  other. 
In  consequence  thereof,  it  is  come  to  that  pass,  that  what 
at  first  was  done  hut  seldom^  and  in  supposed  cases  of  ur- 
gent necessity,  is  now  become  the  universal,  constant 
practice  ;  and  the  one  baptism,  the  acknowledged  one  bap- 
tism of  scripture,  is  entirely  cast  out^  in  favour  of  another 
RHE  ;  except  aniong  a  handful  of  people,  who  still  pre- 
serve the  primitive  form.  Mr.  Baxter^  we  have  already 
seen,  excuses  the  matter  by  the  coldness  of  our  climate. 
Calvin,  the  celebrated  reformer  at  Geneva,  observes,  in 
his  exposition  of  Acts  viii.  38 — ''  We  see  here  what  wag 
the  baptismal  rite  among  the  ancients  ;  for  they  plunged 
the  'whole  body  in  the  water.  Now  'tis  the  custom  for  the 
minister  to  sprinkle  only  the  body  or  head."  And  he 
too  excuses  this  sprinkling  by  saying, — "  It  is  certain  that 
we  want  nothing  which  maketh  to  the  substance  of  bap- 
tism. Wherefore  the  church  did  grant  hberty  to  herself, 
since  the  beginning.,  to  change  the  rites  somewhat,  except- 
ing the  substance."     See  Calvin's  Com.  on  Acts  viii.  38. 

Bishop  Burnet,  though  he  thus  describes  the  primitive 
baptism,  *'  With  no  other  garments  but  what  might  serve 
to  cover  nature  ;  they  at  first  laid  them  down  in  the  water^ 
as  a  man  is  laid  in  a  grave.,  and  then  they  said  these  words,. 
'  /  baptize.,  or  wash  thee  in  the  name.,  kc.  Then  they  rais- 
ed them  up  again,  and  clean  garments  were  put  on  them  : 
from  whence  came  the  phrases  of  being  baptized  into 
Chrisfs  death.,  of  being  buried  zvith  him  by  baptism  into 
death  :  of  our  being  risen  with  Christ,  and  of  our  putting 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.,  of  putting  off  the  old  man.,  and 
putting  on  the  new  :"  And  though  he  justly  observes, 
sacraments  are  positive  precepts  which  are  to  be  measur- 
ed only  by  the  institution.,  in  which  there  is  not  room  left 
for  us  to  carry  them  any  further  ;"  yet  forgetting  his 
own  measure  of  the  institution,  viz.  the  party  baptized  was 
laid  down  in  the  water.,  as  a  man  is  laid  in  the  grave,  "  He 
says,  the  danger  of  dipping  in  cold  climates  may  be  a  very 
good  reason  for  changing  the  form  of  baptism  to  sprink- 
ling:^ Expos,  xxxix  Articles,  pages  326,  300,  346,  Editi 
1st. 


LETTERS     ON     BAPTISM.  55 

"  But  as  the  good  Bishop  observes,  in  the  page  last  cited, 
on  the  other  sacrament,  and  the  change  made  therein  by 
the  church  of  Rome,  ''  All  reasoning  upon  this  head  is  an  . 
arguing  against  the  institution  ;  as  if  Christ  and  his  apostles 
had  not  well  considered  it ;  but  that  1 200.years  after  them, 
a  consequence  should  be  observed,  that  till  then  had  not 
been  thought  of^  which  made  it  reasonable  to  alter  the  man- 
ner of  it.  He  who  instituted  it  knew  best  what  was  most 
iitting  and  most  reasonable  ;  and  we  must^choose  rather 
to  acquiesce  in  his  commands^  than  in  our  own  reasonings.''^ 
Page  347. 

"  It  is  evident  to  your  Lordship,  that  when  our  blessed 
Saviour  said  unto  the  apostles,  Go,  teach  all  nations,  hap- 
tizing  them.,  they  understood  him  to  mean  dipping.  Here 
then  is  one  only  rule  and  law  for  all  nations.  No  provi- 
sion for  making  a  dilTerence  between  warm  climates  and 
cold.  Not  the  least  hint  of  two  rites,  of  which  the  admin- 
istrator may  take  his  choice.,  according  to  his  own  pru- 
duce  and  discretion ;  but  there  is  one  law,  one  institution, 
for  all  nations  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  ;  Go  teach  and 
dip  them.  Why  then,  my  lord,  do  we  not  acquiesce  in 
this  command,  but  change  it  by  our  own  reasoning? 

'•  But  I  beg  leave  to  say  two  or  three  things  in  particu- 
lar to  the  plea  fur  this  confessed  alteration. 

'•''  First,  coldness  of  climate  is  an  excuse  which,  make 
the  best  of  it,  can  serve  but  for  some  part  of  the  year,  and 
for  some  weakly  constitutions  ;  and  yet  the  practice  of 
sprinkling  is  universal  and  constant,  in  the  hot  season  as 
well  as  cold,  and  on  the  most  robust  and  healthy  as  well 
as  the  weak.  The  reason  offered  in  justification  of  the 
7iew  way  implies,  that  were  it  not  for  necessity.,  the  primi- 
tive baptism  should  be  observed  ;  nevertheless,  it  is  not 
observed,  where  no  shadow  of  necessity  is  pretended. 
Such  commonly  is  the  end  and  effect  of  departing  from 
our  rule  :  Human  nature  falls  in  with  what  is  least  trou- 
blesome. We  first  plead  a  necessity  of  relaxing  in  certain 
cases;  these  cases  continually  multiply  in  favour  o^  ease 
and  indulgence.^  and  then  custom  carries  all  before  it.  Dr. 
Wall,  giving  the  reasons  why  in  queen  Elizabeth's  reiga 
the  custom  of  dipping  was  laid  aside,  observes,  "  It  being 
allowed  to  weak  children  to  be  baptized  by  affusion.,  many 
fond  ladies  and  gentlewomen  first,  and  then  by  degrees  the 
common  people,  would  obtain  the  favour  of  the  priest 
to  have  their  children  pass  for  weak  children,  too  tender 
to  eadure  dipping  in  the  water."  Vol.  3.  p.  301,  edit.  1st, 


o6  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

"  Secondly,  Immersion  was  the  constant  practicdn  this 
same  cold  climate  for  many  hundred  years,  (the  change 
into  sprinklings  as  a  general  practice,  being  scarce  two 
hundred  years  old)  and  yet  1  believe  no  history  can  be 
produced  of  its  having  been  of  ill  consequence  even  to  in- 
fants. Take  the  affair  only  in  a  medical  view,  and  cold  bath- 
ing is  not  only  safe,  but  very  useful,  many  times,  to  tender 
babes,  which  made  the  late  Dr.  Cheyne  say,  ^'  I  cannot 
sufficiently  admire  how  it  [cold  bathing]  should  ever  have 
come  into  such  disuse,  especially  among  christians,  when 
commanded  by  the  greatest  Lawgiver  that  ever  was,  under 
the  direction  of  God's  holy  Spirit,  to  his  chosen  people, 
and  perpetuated  to  us  in  the  immersion  at  baptism  by  the 
same  Spirit,  who,  with  infinite  wisdom,  in  this,  as  in  ev- 
ery thing  else,  that  regards  the  temporal  and  eternal  fe- 
licity of  his  creatures,  combines  their  duty  with  their 
happiness."     Essay  on  Health,  &c.  chap.  4  sect.  7. 

••^Thirdly,  The  rule  [God  will  have  mercy  and  not  sac- 
rifice] may  justly  be  applied  to  excuse  from  baptism  itself ^ 
[that  is,  as  I  understand  it,  from  immersion']  those  who  can- 
not receive  it  without  manifest  danger  ;  but,  I  think,  will 
by  no  means  justify  a  change  oihaptism  into  another  quite 
different  rite.  For  illustration  sake,  my  Lord,  I  beg  leave 
to  mention  the  case  of  an  old-testament  rite,  circumcision. 
It  was  a  divine  appointment,  that  this  rite  should  be 
observed  with  respect  to  e-very  Jewish  male  at  eight  days 
old.  Yet  during  the  Israelites''  travel  through  the  wilder- 
ness, for  the  space  of  forty  years,  it  was  omitted.  The 
reason  of  which  was  the  danger  and  great  inconvenience 
that  must  arise  from  it,  in  their  travelling,  unsettled  con- 
dition. Vide  Patrick  and  other  expositors  on  Joshua  v. 
But  suppose  the  Jews,  from  the  undoubted  inconvenience 
of  circumcising  the  part  appointed,  had  reasoned  them- 
selves into  the  practice  of  circumcising  a  finger  or  toe, 
■would  not  this  have  been  an  unwarrantable  departure 
from  the  institution  of  God  ?  Unquestionably  it  would. 
Who  required  this  at  their  hand  ?  And  especially  would 
they  not  be  chargable  with  a  notorious  perversion  of  a 
plain  positive  precept,  if  from  this  plea  of  necessity  in  the 
wilderness  they  should  take  occasion  to  make  the  change 
total  and  perpetual,  upon  all  persons,  and  in  all  times  ? 
And  how  long  soever  this  alteration  had  prevailed,  would 
it  not  be  justifiable,  and  matter  of  commendation,  nay, 
even  duty,  in  those  persons  who  saw  the  deviation  from 


JuEtTERS     ON    BAPTISM.  57 

the  declared  will  of  the  Institutor,  to  reject  this  circum- 
cision of  human  device,  and  restore  it  to  its  first  institu- 
tion ?  We  must  think  so,  unless  the  antiquity  of  error  ex- 
cuse it,  and  make  that  right,  which  at  first  was  wrong". 
If  therefore  baptism  was  originally  immersion,  let  it  be 
immersion  still ;  for,  as  your  most  learned  friend.  Dr.  S. 
Clarke,  has  observed,  "  In  things  of  external  appointment, 
and  mere  positive  institution,  where  we  cannot,  as  in  mat- 
ters of  natural  and  moral  duty,  argue  concerning  the  nat- 
ural reason  and  ground  of  the  obligation,  and  the  original 
necessity  of  the  thing  itself;  we  have  nothing  to  do  but 
to  obey  the  positive  command.  God  is  infinitely  better 
able  than  we  to  judge  of  the  propriety  and  usefulness  of 
the  things  he  institutes  ;  and  it  becomes  us  to  obey  with 
humility  and  reverence."  Expos.  Church  Cat.  page  305, 
&c.  edit.  2d. 

'•  Your  Lordship  will  suffer  me  to  add,  there  is  not  so 
great  a  difference  between  circumcising  a  finger,  and  the 
foreskio,  as  between  covering  the  whole  body  in  water, 
and  sprinkling  the  face.  It  would  be  circumcision  still, 
only  of  a  different  part ;  but  bathing  and  sprinkling,  the 
book  of  God  always  considers  as  two  institutions  quite  dis^ 
tinct."     Foot,  pp.  20—34. 

Those  congregational  divines  who  plead  for  this  right 
to  vary  an  acknowledged  institute  of  Christ,  disarm  them- 
selves in  their  debates  with  Episcopalians  and  Catholics, 
respecting  traditions  and  legislative  power. 

"  In  the  time  of  king  Charles  the  second,  lived  Mr.  Jer- 
emiah IveS,  a  Baptist  minister,  famous  for  his  talent  at  dis- 
putation, of  whom  the  king  having  heard,  sent  for  him  to 
dispute  with  a  Romish  priest;  the  which  he  did  before 
the  king  and  many  others,  in  the  habit  of  a  clergyman. 
Mr.  Ives  pressed  the  priest  closely,  shewing  that  whatev- 
er antiquity  they  pretended  to,  their  doctrine  and  practi- 
ces could  by  no  means  be  proved  apostolic ;  since  they  are 
not  to  be  found  in  any  writings  which  remain  of  the  apos- 
tolic age  ;  the  priest  after  much  wrangling,  in  the  end, 
replied,  that  this  argument  of  Mr.  Ives,  was  of  as  much 
force  against  infant  baptism  as  against  the  doctrines  and 
ceremonies  of  the  church  of  Rome  ;  to  which  Mr.  Ives 
answered,  that  he  readily  granted  what  he  said  to  be 
true  ;  the  priest  upon  this  broke  up  the  dispute,  saying, 
he  had  been  cheated,  and  that  he  would  proceed  no  fur- 
ther; for  he  came  to  dispute  with  a  clergyman  of  the  es- 


58  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

tablished  church,  and  it  was  now  evident,  that  this  was 
an  Anabaptist  preacher.  This  behaviour  of  the  priest 
afforded  his  majesty  and  all  present  not  a  little  diver- 
sion :'**  And  as  Protestant  Pedobaptists  are  urged  by  this 
argument  to  admit  the  unwritten  traditions  of  the  Pa- 
pists :  so  dissenters  of  the  Pedobaptist  persuasion  are  press- 
ed upon  the  same  fooling  by  those  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land to  comply  with  the  ceremonies  of  that  church,  re- 
tained from  the  church  of  Rome,  particularly  by  Dr.  Whit- 
by,! who  having  pleaded  for  some  condescension  to  be 
made  to  dissenters,  in  order  to  reconcile  them  to  the 
church,  adds,  ''  and  on  the  other  hand,  says  he,  if,  not- 
withstanding the  evidence  produced,  that  baptism  by  im- 
mersion is  suitable  both  to  the  institution  of  our  Lord  and 
his  apostles;  and  was  by  them  ordained  to  represent  our 
burial  with  Christ,  and  so  our  dying  unto  sin,  and  our  con- 
formity to  his  resurrection  by  newness  of  life ;  as  the 
apostle  doth  clearly  maintain  the  meaning  of  that  rite  :  I 
say,  if,  notwithstanding  this,  all  our  dissenters  {i.  e.  who 
are- Pedobaptists,  he  must  mean)  do  agree  to  sprinkle  the 
baptized  infant;  why  may  they  not  as  well  submit  to  the 
signiticant  ceremonies  imposed,  by  our  church?  for, 
since  it  is  as  lawful  to  add  unto  Christ's  institutions  a  sig- 
nificant ceremony,  as  to  diminish  a  significant  ceremony, 
which  he  or  his  apostles  instituted,  and  use  another  in  its 
stead,  which  they  never  did  institute  ;  what  reason  can 
they  have  to  do  the  latter^  and  yet  refuse  submission  to 
\\ie  former  ?  and  why  should  not  the  peace  and  union  of 
the  church  be  as  prevailing  with  them,  to  perform  the 
one,  as  is  their  mercy  to  the  infant''s  body  to  neglect  the 
other?  Thus  infant  baptism  is  used  as  the  grand  plea  for 
compliance  with  the  ceremonies  both  of  the  church  of 
Rome  and  of  the  church  oi  England.'''' 

Suppose  a  Protestant,  who  maintains  the  right  to  vary 
the  law  of  baptism,  should  say  to  a  Catholic  priest — Sir, 
by  what  authority  do  you  refuse  the  cup  to  the  laity  ? 
Why  do  you  not  communicate  in  both  kinds  ?  Did  not 
Christ  and  the  primitive  teachers  administer  the  bread 
and  the  wine  to  all  the  communicants?  But  now  you  with- 
hold the  cup  from  private  brethren.  Your  service  in 
this  rite,  therefore,  is  but  a  half  communion.  Tell  me, 
will  you,  by  what  power  you  have  ventured  to  vary  so 
materially  from  this  sacramental  law  ? 

•  Crosby's  History  of  the  Baptists,  vol.  4.  p.  247,  248. 
f  Protestant  Reconciler,  p.  289, 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  59 

The  priest,  in  reply,  admits  the  charge  of  innovation, 
and  confesses,  that  in  the  beginning  the  elements  were 
administered  in  both  kinds  to  the  whole  brotherhood. 
But,  says  he,  Christ  left  in  his  chuich  the  power  to  change 
his'  original  laws,  as  she  should  think  most  conducive  to 
the  honour  and  prosperity  of  religion.  And  you,  Protes- 
tants, whatever  you  say  to  the  contrary,  have  assumed  the 
same  power  to  change  the  instituted  forms  of  worship,  as 
you  deem  best  suited  to  the  existing  state  of  the  church 
and  world,  and  most  conducive  to  the  growth  of  Zion.  You 
have  ventured  to  change  the  original  law  for  immersion, 
first  into  a  rule  for  pouring,  and  then  for  sprinkling. 
The  word  of  God  has  ever  considered  immersion  and 
sprinkling  as  two  distinct  rites.  But  you  have  changed 
one  for  the  other,  or  attempted  to  blend  two  ceremonies 
which  the  Scriptures  have  ever  kept  asunder.  If  our 
communion  is  but  a  half  communion,  your  baptism  is  but 
a  half  baptism.  If  you  have  arguments  to  justify  the 
great  liberty  you  have  taken  with  the  law  of  baptism, 
these  very  arguments  will  answer  just  as  well  for  us  to 
vindicate  our  conduct  in  varying  the  pristine  law  of  com- 
munion. 

After  sprinkling  began  to  prevail  in  the  church,  strong 
opposition  was  made  to  it  both  by  Episcopalians  and 
Catholics. 

Dr.  Wall,  after  accounting  for  the  change  of  immersion 
into  sprinkling  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  day,  says,  "many 
learned  men  in  several  countries  have  endeavoured  to 
retrieve  the  use  of  it,  dipping."* 

•     .  I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  XIL 


ON  THE   APOSTOLIC  COMMISSION. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

Having  gone  through  with  our  discussions  on  the  mode 
of  baptism,  we  will  now  proceed  to  the  subject.  This 
is  confessedly  the  most  material  point  of  difference,  be- 

•  He  quotes  Sotus,  Mede,  Bishop  Taylor,  Sir  Norton,  Knatch- 
bull,  Rogers  Walker,  Dr.  Towerson,  Dr.  Whitby  and  Sir  John 
Floyer.    See  Wall,  Part  2nd,  Chap.  ix.  Second  Edition. 


60  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

cause  it  affects  the  whole  system  of  church  building.  But 
after  all  my  inquiries,  I  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
infant  baplism  has  no  foundation  in  scripture.  My  rea- 
sons for  this  belief  are  now  submitted  for  the  candid  con- 
sideration of  the  reader. 

Infant  baptism  is  not  contained  in  the  great  commission 
given  by  Christ  to  the  apostles,  Matt,  xxviii,  18,  19. 
"  And  Jesus  came,  and  spake  unto  them, (his  disciples) 
saying,  all  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ; 
go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever 
I  have  commanded  you  ;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.     Amen." 

This  commission  is  the  sacred  statute,  enacted  and 
proclaimed  by  Christ,  the  great  Lawgiver  of  Zion.  By  this 
divine  canon  all  the  ambassadors  of  Christ  are  to  be  reg- 
ulated in  their  ministrations.  As  this  law  is  the  rule  that 
Christ  gave  to  guide  his  ministers,  respecting  the  mode 
and  the  subject  of  baptism,  we  may  presume  that  he 
would  be  plain  and  definite  on  these  two  important  points. 
If  then  he  meant  that  his  apostles  should  baptize  infants, 
he  would  without  doubt  have  inserted  a  clause,  that 
would  have  given  them  an  unquestionable  right  to 
this  ordinance.  Would  he  not  have  said,  "  Go  ye,  &c.  bap- 
tizing your  disciples  and  their  children  in  the  name,&c.?" 
Without  this  explicit  declaration  in  their  favour,  his  apos- 
tles would  have  been  extremely  apt  to  suppose,  that  he 
did  not  intend  to  comprise  them  in  their  commission. 
Consider  what  they  had  been  previously  accustomed 
to  witness,  and  to  practise  themselves,  fro^n  the  days  of 
John,  until  the  death  of  Christ.  They,  rhost  or  all  of 
them,  had  been  baptized  by  John  without  their  families. 
In  all  the  baptisms  performed  by  this  harbinger  of  Christ, 
they  saw  no  households  of  children  and  servants  baptized 
on  the  professed  belief  of  their  parents  and  masters. 
They  had  seen  him  rejecting  those  from  baptism,  who 
did  not  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  "  O  gen- 
eration of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come  I"  '^  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for 
repentance."  These  apostles  in  the  early  part  of  Christ's 
ministry  had  been  commissioned  to  go  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house,  of  Israel.  And 
wherever  they  went  they  proclaimed  the  glad  tidings  of 


LETTERS    ON"    BAPTISM.  61 

the  kingrdom  of  God,  and  baptized  none  but  adult  be- 
lievers. Few,  if  any,  ,Pedobaptists  pretend  that  the 
apostles,  previous  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  ever  bap- 
tized any  but  professed  believers.  They  did  not  then  bap- 
tize believing  parents  with  their  unbelieving  children  and 
servants.  Now  since  these  apostles  had  never  seen  par- 
ents and  their  infants  connected  in  baptism,  neither  in  the 
ministry  of  John,  nor  in  that  of  Christ;  and  since  they 
had,  for  a  considerable  time  before  this,  been  leaching  and 
immersing  those  only  whom  they  taught,  and  that  too 
under  the  eye  and  approbation  of  Christ,  would  they  not 
most  naturally  suppose,  that  after  his  ascension  he  meant 
they  should  continue  this  same  practice,  so  far  as  the 
mode  and  the  subjects  were  concerned?  In  this  renewed 
commission,  it  is  true  there  were  additions,  but  no 
changes.  These  were  two :  First,  they  were  now  au- 
thorized to  pass  the  lines,  that  bounded  Judea,  and  go 
into  all  nations,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  ; 
and  second,  the  form  of  words,  to  be  pronounced  in  the 
administration  of  this  ordinance,  was  settled.  With  these 
additions,  and  under  these  circumstances,  the  apostles 
woilld  naturally  continue  to  use  water  in  the  same  man- 
iier  and  upon  the  same  subjects,  as  before.  Is  it  rational 
to  suppose,  that  these  men,  who  all  along  had  been  accus- 
tomed to  see  infants  omitted  in  this  rite,  as  having  no  con- 
cern with  it,  and  who  themselves  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  excluding  them,  and  that  too  under  the  eye  and  sanction 
of  Christ,  would,  thus  situated,  suddenly  embrace  infants 
in  baptism. without  some  express  command  so  to  do  from 
their  Lord  and  Master? 

This  commission  is  not  only  silent  on  this  subject,  but 
its  fair  interpretation  will  lead  us  to  exclude  from  this 
ordinance  all,  who  do  not  exhibit  to  the  eye  of 
charity  some  evidence  of  faith  and  repentance.  This 
commission  enjoins  two  things, —  1st,  Teach  all  nations. 
2nd,  Baptize  all  the  taught,  or  disciples.  The  command 
to  teach,  all  agree,  is  limited  to  those,  capable  of  instruc- 
tion ;  because  it  would  be  making  Christ  a  hard  master  in- 
deed to  say,  that  he  required  of  his  disciples  impossibili- 
ties ;  namely,  to  teach  babes  and  the  insane.  If  then  the 
command  to  teach,  must  be  limited  to  those  who  are  capa- 
ble of  instruction,  must  not  the  command  to  baptize,  be 
limited  also  and  confined  to  the  taught?  If  this  commis- 
sloa  requires  the  baptism  of  ten,  without  faith  and  re- 
F 


62  LETTERS   ON    BAPTISM. 

pentance,  why  not  ten  thousand  ?  If  the  commission  be  not 
limited  as  above,  the  command  to  baptize  admits  of  no  lim- 
itation. What  couhl  the  apostles  see  in  this  commission, 
which  would  lead  them  to  believe  that  Christ  meant  they 
should  teach  some  to  prepare  them  for  baptism,  and  that 
they  were  at  the  same  time  to  baptize  some  to  prepare 
them  for  teaching  ?  Should  a  recruiting-  officer,  commis- 
sioned to  enlist  those,  who  were  capable  of  bearing  arms 
and  of  learning  the  science  of  war,  on  his  return,  inform 
the  commander,  that  in  some  instances  he  enrolled  those, 
who  possessed  the  prescribed  qualifications,  while  in  most 
cases  he  enlisted  babes  and  minors  and  whole  households 
to  bring  them  into  the  military  school,  and  under  the  hope 
that  they  in  some  future  period  would  become  the  sub- 
jects of  all  th«3  requisite  accomplishments  ; — would  he  not 
find  some  difficulty  in  defending  this  conduct  when  inter- 
rogated what  he  saw  in  his  commission,  which  encourag- 
ed him  to  depart  so  materially  from  his  instructions  ? 
Whatever  this  commission  requires  of  some,  as  a  prereq- 
uisite for  baptism,  it  equally  requires  the  same  of  all  the 
candidates  for  this  ordinance ;  consequently  it  excludes 
infants,  because  they  are  incapable  of  instruction,  the  es- 
sential qualification. 

Some  Pedobaptists  say  that  the  apostles  would  teach 
adults,  and  then  baptize  them  and  their  children.  This 
they  say  they  would  do,  because  they  had  all  along  been 
accustomed  to  household  circumcision.  But  is  not  this 
saying  that  the  apostles  learned  infant  baptism,  not  from 
this  commission,  but  from  the  law  of  circumcision  ?  All 
snch,  as  reason  in  this  manner,  abandon  the  commission, 
as  affording  any  warrant  for  this  practice.  Others  there 
are  who  say,  as  this  commission  enjoins  the  teaching  and 
baptizing  all  nations,  and  as  infants  are  component  parts 
of  all  nations,  therefore,  this  commission  commands  infant 
baptism.  This  mode  of  reasoning,  you  see,  my  brethren, 
places  the  right  of  infant  baptism,  not  on  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  nor  on  the  faith  of  parents,  but  on  the  member- 
ship in  the  great  family  of  man.  They  ar^.  members  of  na- 
tions, they  say,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  baptized.  But 
the  infelicity  attending  this  argument  is,  that  it  proves  too 
much,  and  therefore  is  good  for  nothing.  It  prove«  that 
we  ought  to  baptize  idiots,  infidels,  an<l  the  children  of 
unbelievers,  because  all  these  are  as  truly  parts,  or  mem- 
bers of  all  nation?.  a«  are  the  children  of  professors. 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  63 

The  Pedobaptists  in  general  are  at  one  time  very  san- 
guine, that  this  commission  embraces  infants,  yet  at  an- 
other they  seem  to  be  equally  !«ure,  that  it  doth  not  em- 
brace them.  Thus  when  a  Baptist  objects  to  infant  bap- 
tism, because  they  are  incapable  of  the  requisite  qualiti- 
cation,  and  quotes  this  clause  of  the  commission,  viz. 
"  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  as  proof  that 
faith  must  be  before  baptism,  his  opponent  promptly  at- 
tempts to  parry  this  objection,  by  saying,  this  clause  re- 
spects adults  and  them  only,  and  by  no  means  has  any  re- 
spect to  infants,  because  it  would  be  reproachful  to  Christ, 
to  say,  that  he  threatens  infants  with  final  ruin,  merely 
because  they  cannot  believe  and  embrace  his  gospel. 
Here  you  see  that  his  opponent  joins  with  the  Baptist, 
and  maintains  that  this  commission,  as  recorded  by 
Mark,  requires  faith  of  all  those,  of  whom  it  requires  bap- 
tism. Now  is  not  this  granting  all  that  we  have  attempt- 
ed to  ,  rove,  viz.  that  this  commission  does  not  embrace 
infants,  and  enforce  their  baptism?  Would  the  Holy 
Ghost  move  the  Evangelist  Mark,  to  word  this  commis- 
sion so  as  to  exclude  all  infants,  whilst  this  same  Spirit 
moved  St.  Matthew  to  express  it  in  such  a  manner,  as  to 
embrace  all  infants  I  If  this  he  true,  and  if  they  both  were 
guided  by  their  respective  commissions,  then  it  must  fol- 
low, that  their  practice  would  be  correspondingly  differ- 
ent :  One  would  embrace  and  baptize  infants,  and  the 
other  would  exclude  them  as  not  contained  in  his  orders, 
and  as  incapable  of  the  prerequisites  for  this  ordinance. 

We  are  sensible  that  Whitby,  Peter  Edwards,  and  many 
others,  have  said,  that  if  the  want  of  faith  will  exclude 
them  from  baptism,  then  the  want  of  faith  will  exclude 
them  from  heaven,  because,  say  the  . ,  faith  is  more  strong- 
ly required  for  salvation,  than  t^or  baptism.  On  all  those 
who  deny  the  right  of  infant  communion  this  argviment 
may  be  retorted  thus  :  You  exclude  infants  from  the  ta- 
ble, for  want  of  faith  to  discern  the  Lord's  body  ;  but  this 
reasoning  will  debar  them  from  heaven — because  Christ 
has  more  strongly  required  faith  for  salvation,  than  he 
has  for  communion.  If,  then,  want  of  faith  will  shut  in- 
fants from  the  Lord's  supper,  much  more  will  it  forbid 
their  admission  to  future  glory.  But  we  trust  that  neither 
their  reasoning  nor  ours  will  exclude  them  from  the  para 
disc  of  God. 

I  am,  &e. 


64  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 


LETTER  XIIL 

INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  FOUND  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF  THE   APOSTLE?, 
NOR  IN  ANY  FART  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

In  our  last  we  endeavoured  to  show,  that  the  great  gos- 
pel commission  demanded  faith  and  repentance,  as  terms 
of  admission  into  the  church  of  Christ,  and  therefore  did 
not  comprise  infants.  Let  us  now  proceed  to  examine  the 
history  of  primitive  times,  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  If  throughout  this  history,  and  every  part  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  find  no  solitary  instance  of  the 
baptism  of  babes  and  children  on  the  profession  of  their 
parents,  and  no  allusion  to  such  a  ceremony,  the  presump- 
tive argument  is  very  strong,  that  no  such  practice  then 
existed. 

The  inspired  penmen  often  mention  the  baptism  of 
adults,  both  men  and  women,  and  that  too  in  great  num- 
bers ;  but  they  give  no  intimation  of  infant  sprinkling.  It 
is  sometimes  said,  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  look  for  any 
direction  to  baptize  infants,  because  God  had  once  given 
a  command  to  circumcise  them.  But  if  this  remark  be 
correct,  will  it  hence  follow,  that  it  would  be  equally  un- 
reasonable to  expect  to  find  some  account  that  the  apos- 
tles obeyed  this  ancient  injunction,  by  applying  to  infants 
the  same  seal,  as  it  is  said  to  be,  only  in  a  milder  form? 
If  they  thought  there  was  a  precept  of  this  kind,  it  is  not 
a  little  strange  we  are  left  without  proof  that  it  received 
their  obedience.  If  this  practice  then  prevailed,  is  it  not 
passing  strange,  that  all  the  sacred  penmen  should  have 
passed  over  in  profound  silence  all  the  many  thousand 
cases  of  Pedobaptism,  which  must  have  occurred  before 
their  writings  were  brought  to  a  close  ?  Children,  when 
they  were  parties  in  the  narrated  facts,  were  constantly 
mentioned.  '' Israel  journijd  from  Rameses  to  Succotli, 
about  600,000  on  foot.,  that  were  men,  besides  c/aWren."  ' 
"  And  they  that  had  eaten  were  about  5000  men,  besides 
women  and  children.*'  Children  sung  hosannas  to  the 
Son  of  David,  Children  accompanied  their  parents  on 
their  way.  Children  are  often  mentioned  in  scripture, 
evidently  for  the  purpose  of  swelling  numbers,  and  for 
rendering  the  miracles  of  God  the   more  illustrious.     So 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  65 

when  the  inspired  writers  wished  to  magnify  the  power 
of  the  Gospel  and  its  triumphant  success,  they  were  par- 
ticular to  specify  sexes,  and  the  multitudes,  who  embrac- 
ed its  offers.  '^  And  believers  were  the  more  added  to 
the  Lord,  multitudes,  both  men  and  women."  if  the 
aposties  were  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  infants,  and  of  add- 
ing them  to  the  church,  as  some  do  now,  then  the  child- 
ren of  those  men  and  women  might  compose  nearly  half 
the  number,  who  were  added  to  the  Lord.  It  is  rather 
myiiterious,  that  in  their  calculations  they  should  have 
taken  no  notice  of  such  a  large  accession,  especially  when 
we  reflect  that  it  was  manifestly  their  design  to  exalt  the 
power  of  grace,  by  showing  the  greatness  of  the  numbers 
gathered  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  If  on  this  occasion 
numberless  children  were  brought  within  the  pale  of  the 
church,  how  natural  for  the  apostles  to  mention  them,  and 
to  say,  '*' believers  and  their  households  were  added  to 
the  Lord,  multitudes,  both  men,  Women,  and  children." 

Let  us  proceed  to  recite  to  you,  and  remark  on  several 
passages  of  scripture,  where  the  subject  of  baptism  is  in- 
troduced, to  learn  whether  in  any  of  them  we  can  find 
support  for  Pedo'baptism.  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them, 
Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Pioly  Ghost."  Acts  ii.  38,  39.  ''  For  the 
promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that 
are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
*' Then  they  that  gladly  received  the  word  were  baptiz- 
ed: and  the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls."  Verse  41.  "And  the  Lord  add- 
ed to  the  church  daily  such  as  should  be  saved."  Verse 
47.  Here  we  see  that  Peter  commanded  the  same  per- 
sons to  be  baptized,  whom  he  had  previously  exhorted  to 
repent  and  believe;  and  there  is  not  the  least  intimation, 
that  he  baptized  any,  except  those  who  gladly  received 
his  word.  The  Lord  added  unto  the  church  daily,  such 
as  should  be  saved.  But  if  at  the  same  time  all  the  in- 
fants and  unbelieving  children,  and  servants  of  chrisliaa 
parents,  and  ma^^ters,  were  added  to  the  church,  would  it 
have  been  safe  to  say  of  all  those,  who  were  tiien  desti- 
tute of  grace,  that  they  were  such  as  should  be  saved? 
Would  it  not  have  been  hazardous  for  parents  or  masters 
to  promise  in  behalf  of  all  these  infants  and  minors,  th^t 
they  should  all  repent  and  believe,  when  they  knew  not 
F  2 


OO  LETi'ERS    ON     BAPlIbM.. 

but  that  some  oflhem  would  grow  up  without  rational 
powers,  and  others  without  any  heart  to  embrace  the  Sa- 
viour ? 

I  am  aware,  that  the  advocates  of  Pedobaptism  employ 
the  phrase,  ^'  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  chil- 
dren," as  a  strong  proof  of  their  system.  They  consider 
it  as  referring  to  the  promise  made  to  Abraham  in  the 
17th  Chap,  of  Genesis.  Those  whom  the  Apostle  ad- 
dressed were  Jews  and  Gentiles,  individuals  out  of  divers 
nations.  To  these  he  says,  '•'  The  promise  is  unto'^ou 
and  to  your  children."  The  detinite  article  prefixed  to 
this  sentence,  shows  that  the  promise  was  great  and  well 
Jinown.  But  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  there  is  no 
promise,  that  God  would  be  a  God  to  the  Gentiles  and  to 
their  seed,  as  well  as  to  the  Jews  and  to  their  seed.  If 
the  promise  in  the  17th  of  Gen.  were  as  applicable  to 
Gentiles  as  to  Jews  and  to  their  children,  then  circum- 
cision sealed  the  same  blessings  to  Gentiles  and  to  their 
seed,  as  it  did  to  Jews  and  to  their  seed.  How  then 
could  it  become  a  mark  of  discrimination  between  Jews 
and  Gentiles?  On  this  plan,  what  advantage  had  the  Jew 
above  the  Gentile  ?  and  what  peculiar  profit  was  there  in 
circumcision  ?  The  promise,  then,  here  mentioned,  doth 
not,  we  believe,  refer  to  the  one  mentioned  in  Genesis, 
but  to  the  promise  of  the  affusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
That  this  is  the  promise,  to  which  he  alludes,  will  ap- 
pear from  an  attentive  perusal  of  the  chapter. 

The  many  thousands  who  were  assembl^^d  at  Jerusa- 
lem, were  confounded  and  amazed,  when  they  heard  the 
Apostles,  and  others,  preaching  in  all  the  various  tongues 
which  v/ere  spoken  in  their  respective  nations.  Peter-, 
perceiving  their  surprise,  undertook  to  remove  the 
ground  of  their  astonishment.  When  they  said,  ''What 
meaneth  this?"  he  replied,  ^' These  men  are  not  drunk 
as  ye  suppose,  but  this  is  that  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet  Joel.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
(saith  God)  1  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and 
your  young  men  shall  see  vifeions,  and  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams  And  on  my  servants  and  on  my  hand- 
maidens, I  will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  spirit ;  and 
they  shall  prophesy."  After  saying  much  on  the  ascen- 
sion of  Christ,  he  adds,  "-This  Jesus  hath  God  raised  up. 
Therefore  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  67 

Ghost,  bath  shed  forth  this,  ^vhich  ye  now  see  and  hear.** 
The  promise  of  the  Father  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  in  the 
last   Jays,  may  be  found  in  Isa.  xxxii.   15,  16,  and  xliv.  3. 
Jer.  XKxi.  33^  &c.  '^  Christ  repeatedly    promised  to  send 
from  his  Father  the   Holy  Gho^l   to   his   di.-cipies.     See 
John  xiv.  16,  "i  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he   shall  give 
you  another  Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  with  you  for- 
ever.    Verse  26,   But  the  Comforter,  which  is  lijc    Holy 
Ghost,  whom  the   Father  Avill  send  m  my  name,  he  shall 
teach  you  all  things.     Chap.  xv.  26,  But  when  the  Com- 
forter is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  I'rom  the  Lath- 
er.    Chap.  xvi.  7,    But  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  (Holy 
Ghost)  unto  you."     When  Christ  ascended,    he  renewed 
the  promise  of  the   Holy  Ghost,  saying,   •*•  Behold  1  send 
the  promise  of  my  Father  unto  you,  but  tarry  ye  in  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  until  ye  be  endowed  with   power  I'mm 
on  high."     See  Luke  xxiv.   49.     For  this  promise  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  they  waited.     And  when  the  Holy  Ghost  fell 
on  them   on  the    day   of  Fenteco;«t,   and   they    began   to 
prophesy  and  to  w.-rk  miracles,  Peter  tohl  the  wondering 
strangers   that   wliat   they    tiien  saw  and  heard  was   only 
the  fulhlmenl  of  ttiat  promise  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  Christ  made   to  his  disciples  when  he  was 
taken  up  into  heaven.    *' He,  (i.  e.  Christ,)  having  receiv- 
ed of  the  Fatlu'r  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath 
shed  forth  this  which  ye  now  see  and   hear.*'    See  v.  33. 
He  soon  after  exhorted  them  to  repent  and  to  be  baptiz- 
ed lor   the  remission  of  sins.      And  as  a  motive  to  ooedi- 
ence,  he  promised  that  they  too  should   receive  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost.     To  encourage    their  hope  of  this  promise,  he 
says,    '•''  the   promise  is    unto  you  and  to  your  children." 
Now  as  Peter  had  told  them    that  what  was  then  passing 
betore  their  eyes  was  the  fuUilment    of  the   prediction  of 
the  miraculous  etfu.-ion  of  the  Holy  Ghost,    and   of  the 
promise  of  Christ  of  the  same  thiny;',  wojld  they  not  nat- 
urally conclude  that  he  iiad  reference  to  the  same  prom- 
ise, when  he  said,  Ye  shall  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,   for 
the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children  ?     His  ex- 
hortation is  this  :    God    hath   promised   by  the  mouth  of 
Joel,  that  he  wouhl,  in  the  last  days,  pour   out  his  Spirit 
on  all  flesh,  and  that  miraculous  things  should  follow,  and 
Christ  hath  received  of  the  Father  the  fulfilment  of  this 
promise,  and  is  shed«Ung^  ierth  the  Holy  Ghost  as  ye  now 
see  and  hearj  repent  ye  j  therefore,  and  you  shall  receive 


68  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

the  Iloiy  Ghost,  the  same  which  ye  now  see  shed  fortk 
on  us  :  lur  the  same  promise  of  the  Hol^  Ghost  is  unto 
you  and  to  your  children. 

Tiie  phrase  •'  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your 
children,'"'  Peter  assigns  as  a  motive  for  something-.  But 
for  what,  ail  are  not  agreed.  Pedobaptists  say  that  it  is 
connected  with  the  phrase,  '•'•  repent  and  be  baptized," 
and  is  given  as  a  motive  for  believing  parents  to  submit 
themselves  and  their  infants  to  baptism.  But  Baptists 
say  that  it  is  connected  with  the  phrase,  "  and  ye  shall 
receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  promise  is  unto  you  and 
to  your  children."  Which  is  the  most  natural  and  the 
most  consistent  with  the  whole  context,  and  wi^h  the  con- 
struction of  the  passage,  is  submitted  to  the  decision  of  the 
candid  reader.     He  is  desired  to  read  the  whole  chapter. 

Beside,  let  those,  who  use  this  text  as  an  argument  for 
infant  sprinkling,  j'jrove,  that  ta  tekna^  rendered  children^ 
means  here  any  thing  more  or  lev«;s,  than  posterity.  If  it 
mean  only  posterity,  then  their  argument  will  prove 
that  if  a  man  be  converted  when  he  is  seventy  years  old, 
he  must  be  baptized  and  all  his  children,  though  they 
are  ail  unbelievers,  and  though  they  may  be  forty  or  hfty 
years  old,  because  the  promise  is  unto  him  and  to  his 
[ta  tckna^)  children.  It  is  not  unto  him  and  to  his 
infants  and  minors,  but  unto  all  his  posterity,  of  every 
age  and  sex.  If  this  promise  respecting  posterity  gener- 
ally, be  a  good  argument  why  minors  should  be  baptized, 
why  is  it  not  an  equally  good  argument,  that  all  the  other 
po-terity  of  believing  parents  should  be  baptized  ? 

Leigh,  in  his  Critica  Sacra,  saj^s  tekiia  is  a  general  word 
which,  in  scripture  and  other  writers,  is  used  to  set  forth 
all  sorts  of  children,  of  whatever  sex,  of  whatever  age,  of 
whatever  degree  soever  they  be.     See  him  on  the  word. 

Moreover,  will  not  this  exposition  prove  that  all  the 
children  of  believing  parents  will  be  saved  ?  because  ef- 
Actual  calling  is  just  as  extensive  as  the  promise.  If  then 
the  promise  be  to  all  their  posterity,  then  all  their  pos- 
terity will  be  called  and  saved. 

See  Acts  viii.  12.  '^  But  when  they  believed  Philip 
preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdoni  of  God,  and 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men 
an^!  women.*'  You  will  observe,  that  it  is  not  said,  mea 
and  women,  and  their  children,  is  there  any  evidence 
here  that  Philip  baptized  any  who  did  not  hear  and  be- 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  69 

ireve  what  he  preached  concerning  the  name  of  Jesus  and 
the  kingdom  of  God? 

Acts  viii.  36,  27,  38,  39,  "  And  as  they  went  on  their 
way,  they  came  unto  a  certain  water:  and  the  eunuch 
said,  See,  here  is  water  ;  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized ?  And  Philip  said,  if  thou  believest  with  all  thine 
heart,  thou  mayest.  And  he  answered  and  said,  I  believe 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.  And  he  commanded 
the  chariot  to  stand  still;  and  they  went  down  both  into 
the  water,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch;  and  he  baptized 
him.  And  when  they  were  come  up  out  of  the  water, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip,  that  the  eu- 
nuch saw  him  no  more  ;  and  he  went  on  his  way  rejoic- 
ing." Here  Philip  demanded  of  this  man,  faith  as  an  es- 
sential pre-requisite  for  baptism — If  thou  believest,  thou 
mayest.  Is  it  probable  then  that  he  would  admit  other 
adults  to  this  ordinance  without  making  the  same  demand? 
But  if  he  were  a  Pedobaptist,  and  determined  the  sub- 
jects of  this  rite  by  the  law  of  circumcision,  he  might  fre- 
quently baptize  individuals  in  the  households  of  profess- 
ors, who  gave  no  evidence  of  faith,  though  perhaps  they 
were  60  or  70  ^ears  of  age. 

'*•  And  the  morrow  after  they  entered  into  Cesarea. 
And  Cornelius  waited  for  them,  and  had  called  together 
his  kinsmen  and  near  friends." — "  While  Peter  yet  spake 
these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard 
the  word." — ''  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost  as  w«ll  as  we  ?"  '^  And  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."     Acts  x.  24,  44,  47,  48. 

Here  we  are  informed  that  Cornelius  had  called  in  his 
kinsmen  and  near  friends  and  neighbours.  While  they 
expected  to  wait  some  time  for  the  arrival  of  Peter,  ii  is 
likely  they  would  take  with  them  some  of  their  infants 
and  children.  This  is  certainly  as  probable  as  it  is  that 
Lydia  would  take  her  children,  if  she  had  any,  on  a  long 
voyage.  If,  then,  Peter  practised  infant  baptism,  it  seems 
rational  to  look  for  some  account  of  it  in  this  place.  But 
we  find  that  those  who  heard  the  word,  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  those  were  the  only  individuals,  whom  he 
commanded  to  be  baptized. 

Beside  these  places,  the  baptism  of  individuals  is  men- 
tioned in  Acts  ix.  17,  18.  xxii.  16  xviii.  8.  xix.  5.  In 
these  passages  we  are  directed  to  apply  this  rile  to  those 
only,  who  make  profession  of  their  faith. 


70  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

Bat  it  may  be  asked,  were  not  infants  admitted  to  this 
ordinance,  in  those  recorded  instances  of  household  bap- 
tism ?  Ttiese  are  three,  the  household  of  Stephanus,  the 
Jailer,  and  that  of  Lydia.  Let  us,  my  brethren,  examine 
them  with  fairness  and  candor. 

The  history  which  Paul  has  given  of  the  first  family, 
IS  sufficient  to  silence  all  arguments  drawn  from  it  in  sup- 
port of  Pedobaplism.  Says  he,  ''  Ye  know  the  house  of 
Stephanus,  that  it  is  the  first  fruits  of  Achaia,  and  that 
they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saints."  On  this  text  Dr.  Mc'Knight  says,  '^  The  family 
of  Stephanus  seem  all  to  have  been  adults,  when  they 
were  baptized  ;  for  they  are  said  to  have  devoted  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints."  Dr.  Guise  remarks, 
*'  It  therefore  seems  that  the  family  of  Stephanus  were 
all  adult  believers,  and  so  were  all  baptized  on  their  own 
personal  profession  of  faith  in  Christ." 

What  was  the  character  of  this  house  ?  They  were  the 
holy  fruits  of  Paul's  ministry.  What  was  their  employ- 
ment ?  They  exerted  themselves  in  acts  of  charity,  and 
in  expressions  of  christian  sympathy  and  affection  towards 
the  sick  and  afflicted.  But  this  character  and  these  la- 
bours of  love  cannot  be  predicated  of  infants. 

An  account  of  the  Jailer  and  household  we  have  in 
Actsxvi.  29,  30,  31,  32,  33,  34.  "Then  he  called  for  a 
light,  and  sprang  in,  and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down 
before  Paul  and  Silas,  and  brought  them  out,  and  said, 
Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  And  they  said.  Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and 
thy  house.  And  they  spake  unto  him  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And  he  took 
them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
stripes  ;  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway. 
And  when  he  had  brought  them  into  his  house,  he  set 
meat  before  them,  and  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all 
his  house."  Here  we  ha^  the  act  of  the  jailer. — He 
brought  them  out  ;  he  inquired  what  he  must  do  to  be 
saved — He  is  directed,  "  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house."  The 
meaning  of  this  promise  "cannot  be  (says  Dr.  Doddridge,) 
that  the  eternal  salvation  of  his  family  could  be  secured 
by  his  faith,  but  that,  if  they  also  themselves  believed, 
they  should  be  entitled  to  the  same  spiritual  and  ever- 
lasting blessings  with  himself"  Family  Expos.  We  al- 
so learn  from  these  words,  of  what  characters  his  house- 


LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM.  71 

hold  consisted.  '•  They  spake  unto  bim  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.'''*  Here  we  find 
Paul  in  the  jailer's  house,  instructing  all,  or  preaching  to 
all  the  members  of  the  house  They  a// heard,  they  all 
believed,  or  rejoiced  in  God,  and  were  all  baptized.  Be- 
fore baptism,  we  tind  them  all  in  the  house  ;  after  bap- 
tisin,  we  find  the  jailer  led  them  back  into  his  house.  It 
is  certain,  then,  that  after  sermon  they  went  out  of  the 
jailer's  house.  But  for  what  purpose,  unless  for  baptism  ? 
Had  they  been  sprinkled,  then  for  this  purpose  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  leaving  Uie  house  ;  because 
one  cup  of  water  would  have  sufficed.  Some  have  said, 
that  fear  of  transgressing  the  injunction  of  the  raagislrates 
would  have  kept  them  from  going  out  of  the  prison  lor 
baptism.  But  facts  prove  that  this  fear  did  not  contine 
them.  They  came  out  of  the  inner  prison,  they  went 
into  the  jailer's  house,  they  went  out  of  the  house,  and 
they  entered  it  again.  All  this  motion  is  certain.  This  fear, 
then,  did  not  confine  them  during  the  night — nor  did  they 
on  this  ground  refuse  to  leave  the  prison  in  the  morning. 
But  they  meant  to  remain  and  humble  those  magistrates, 
who  had  infracted  the  laws  by  their  false  imprisonment, 
and  oblige  them  to  come  in  person  and  give  them  an  hon- 
ourable discharge.  See  ver.  37.,  38.  It  is  said  that  we 
have  no  proof  that  any  of  the  jailer's  family  believed  but 
himself  The  apostle  says,  he  rejoiced,  believing  in  God 
with  all  his  house.  If  you  say  that  you  dined  with  the 
legislature,  none  would  doubt  but  they  ate  as  well  as 
yourself  Should  you  say  that  you  rejoiced  with  them  at 
the  ratification  of  peace,  the  idea  would  be  taken,  that  you 
were  both  the  subject"^  of  joy.  And  if  it  were  said,  you 
believe  with  the  congress  of  the  United  States,  that  Wash- 
ington captured  Cornwallis,  no  one  from  this  mode  of  ex- 
pression would  doubt,  but  what  they  believed  thi^  intelli- 
gence, as  well  as  yourself  So  when  it  is  said  that  the 
jailer  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house,  we 
are  naturally  led  to  conclude,  that  both  he  and  they 
were  the  subjects  of  faith.*     1  will  just  add,  my  brethren 

*  The  adverb  TTMvetxt  some  say  means,  domestically,  i  e.  he 
rej'Mced,  they  say,  not  with  his  family.,  but  in  all  the  vari'-us 
apartments  of  his  house  But  in  opposition  to  this  strange  no- 
tion, Josephus,  Screvillius,  Parkhip-^t,  apd  others,  say,  this  word 
is  equivalent  to  the  G'eek  words,  o-ui»  5r«rT<  tmcu.  nuith  allthehnuse^ 
and  equiva'ent  to  the  Latin  words  cum  totu  dumo  cum  totaf.imil- 
ia,  v:ifh  all  the  house,  and  SO  fully  justify  the  correctness  of  our 
version. 


72  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

that  the  manner  in  which   Pedobaptists  explain  this  text, 
will  turn  it  into  an  argument  to  baptize  a  pagan  woman,  and 
admit  her  into    ihe  church.     For  if,  as  they  say,  no  indi- 
vidual of  this  house  believed  but  the  jailer,   and  that   all 
were  baptized  on  his  faith,  then    it   is  just  as  fair  to  say, 
that  he  had  an  idolatrous  wife  to  baptize,  as   well  as  un- 
believing children  and  servants.     It  was  as  likely  that  she 
was  a  component  part  of  the  family,  as  graceless  children. 
Should  a  minister  take  this  text,  thus  interpreted,  for  his 
guide,  then    if  blessed   to  the  conversion  of  an  Indian  sa- 
chem, who  is  the  only  believer    over  a  numerous  family, 
he  must  proceed  to  baptize  him   and  his  graceless  com- 
panion, all  his  children  and  pagan  servants,  and   incorpo- 
rate them  all  into  the  church.     And  when  he    had   done, 
he  might  say,  in  this  conduct,   1  am  borne  out  by  the  ex- 
ample of  Paul,  for  he  baptized  the  jailer's  whole  house- 
hold, though  in  it  he  was  the  only  believer.     Wherever 
then  I  find   a  believing  father,  connected  with  an  impeni- 
tent wife  and   children,  I   must  comprise  them  all  in  the 
baptismal  law,   and  by  this  rite    initiate  them  all  into   the 
kingdom  of  God.     This,   says  he,  is  the  manner  in  which 
the  apostle  treated  the  household  of  an  individual  believer. 
The  next  case  to  be  considered,   is  that  of  Lydia.     Be- 
fore the  baptism  of  her   household  can  be   juade  to   bear 
on  the  point  at  issue,  four  things  must  be  taken  for  grant- 
ed.     1.  That  she  at  this  time,  or  lately,  had  an  husband. 

2.  That  she  had  children,   and  children  then  in   infancy. 

3.  That  these  children   were  then  with  her   at  Philippi. 

4.  That  such  children  were  actually  baptized. 

But,  my  brethren,  where  is  the  proof  that  any  of  these 
circumstances  existed?  What  evidence  is  there  that  she 
was  then,  or  recently,  a  married  woman  ?  If  she  had  a 
companion,  why  did  she,  the  weaker  sex,  take  the 
management  of  their  commercial  concerns,  and  for  traf- 
fic engage  in  a  distant  and  perilous  voyage  ?  Why  was  he, 
in  the  history,  cast  entirely  into  the  shade,  while  she  ap- 
pears as  the  only  ruler  and  director  of  her  domestic  and 
public  affairs?  If  she  had  children,  who  were  then  too 
young  to  act  for  themselves,  where  is  the  proof  that  they 
were  then  with  her?  She  belonged  to  the  city  of  Thya- 
tira,  in  Asia  Minor.  Paul  found  her  at  Philippi,  a  city  in 
Europe,  whither  she  had  trav^elled,  and  taken  temporary 
lodgings,  for  the  purpose  of  vending  purple,  which  in 
those  days  was  held  in   high  demand.     Now   it   seems 


LETTERS     ON    BAPTISM.  73 

very  improbable,  that  she  should,  with  all  her  merchan- 
dise, take  her  little  children,  if  she  had  any,  on  a  journey 
of  about  200  miles,  performed  mostly  by  sea. 

Lydia's  household  comprised  all  the  individuals  who 
were  first  baptized  within  the  boundaries  of  Europe  ; 
and  the  jailer's  contained  the  second  company  of  baptized 
individuals.  The  last,  Paul  and  Silas  left  at  the  prison, 
when  they  went  back  and  entered  the  house  of  Lydia. 
Here  they  saw,  and  comforted  the  brethren.  But  who 
were  these  brethren  ? — how  came  they  in  her  house? 
What  evidence  have  we,  that  they  had,  during  the  ab- 
sence of  Paul  and  Silas,  collected  from  the  neighbour- 
hood? If  there  were  believers  interspersed  in  the  city,  it 
is  all  conjectural,  that  they  were  then  assembled  in  her 
house.  Who,  then,  the  question  returns,  were  those 
brethren,  whom  Paul  and  Silas  comforted  in  the  house  of 
Lydia  ?  Were  they  not  those  believing  individuals,  whom 
he  baptized  in  her  family,  when  he  first  landed  in  Europe  ? 
Dr.  Whitby,  on  this  place,  says,  "  And  when  she,  and  those 
of  her  household,  were  instructed  in  the  christian  faith, 
in  the  nature  of  baptism  required  by  it,  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household."  The  assembly  of  divines,  in  their 
annotations,  and  note  on  this  text,  say,  that  Paul  and  Si- 
las entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia,  "  doubtless  to  con- 
firm them  in  the  faith,  which  they  had  preached  to  them. 
— Lydia,  and  hers^  hearing  o{ their  miraculous  deliverance. 
Could  not  but  be  comforted,  and  confirmed  in  the  faith." 

I  am,  kc. 


LETTER  XIV. 

ON  THE  DESIGN  OF  CHRISTIAN  BAPTlS>I. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

It  is  of  the  highest  moment  in  this  debate,  that  we 
should  gain  correct  views  of  the  sacred  design  of  this  re* 
ligious  rite.  A  mistake  here,  like  the  adoption  of  a 
wrong  figure  in  mathematical  calculations,  will  inevitably 
lead  to  a  false  result.  But  if  we  can  ascertain  from  scrip- 
ture the  design  or  import  of  this  institution,  we  can  then 
the  better  determine  in  what  mode,  and  to  what  subjects 
it  was  administered. 

O 


74  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

1.  Baptism  was  designed  to  form  the  visible  boundary 
between  the  world  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Says 
Christ  to  Xicodemus,  "  Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto  thee, 
except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  By  kingdom  of  God, 
I  believe,  is  generally  understood  the  visible  kingdom  of 
the  Messiah  on  the  earth  ;  though  the  kingdom  of  glory 
may  be  included.  Now  for  a  regular,  visible  standing  in 
this  kingdom,  Christ  demanded  two  prerequisites.  First, 
being  born  of  water,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  being 
baptized.  And  second,  being  born  of  the  Spirit.  All 
who  gave  evidence  of  possessing  both  of  these,  had  a 
regular  standing  in  the  kingdom.  But  those  who  gave  no 
evidence  of  grace,  and  were  not  the  subjects  of  the  bap- 
tismal birth,  could  not,  according  to  Christ,  enter  into  this 
kingdom  of  God.  Hence  it  follows,  that  being  born  of 
"^vater,  or  baptized,  is  the  external  sign  which  forms  the 
dividing  line  between  the  church  and  the  world. 

In  passing,  we  will  pause  to  make  two  remarks.  First, 
that  if  the  gospel  church,  and  the  Jewish  church,  be  one 
and  the  same,  as  some  say,  why  then  did  Christ  declare 
with  reiterated  emphasis,  that  Nicodemus  must  be  born 
of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  in  order  to  his  entering  into 
that  kingdom  in  which  he  had  long  stood,  and  was  at  that 
very  moment  one  of  its  distinguished  officers  ?  Can  the 
question  be  answered,  without  admitting  that  these 
churches  were  different  in  their  terms  of  admission  ? 

Second,  since  Christ  here  makes  the  spiritual  birth,  as 
essential  as  the  water  birth,  for  admittance  into  this  king- 
dom of  God,  will  it  not  follow,  that  baptism  alone,  on  a 
subject  that  gives  no  evidence  of  being  born  of  the  Spirit, 
cannot  give  that  subject  admittance  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  ?  Does  he  not  lack  a  qualification,  without  which 
Christ  hath  declared,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God  ?  But  can  an  infant  give  charitable  evidence  of 
this  new  birth,  without  which  evidence  none  are  to  be  re- 
ceived into  the  Church? 

2.  Baptism  is  designed  to  answer  a  good  conscience 
toward  God.  Says  Peter,  "  the  like  figure  whereunto 
even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us,  (not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God,")  I  Peter,  iii.  21.  The  apostle 
here  without  doubt  means,  that  baptism  is  the  answer  of 
a  good  coascience  toward  God  in  those,  who  are  the  sub- 


LETTERS   ON    BAPTISM.  i5 

jects  of  the  ordinance.  Peter  doth  not  here  sa)'  that  it 
was  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  in  some,  but  not  in 
others.  His  definition  is  general,  teaching  us,  that  whea 
baptism  was  received  with  right  motives,  it  was  in  all 
such  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God.  Novir 
if  this  be  the  design  of  baptism,  must  it  not  be  confined  to 
those  who  are  capable  of  exercismg  a  good  conscience  ? 
Apply  it  to  an  idiot,  and  it  would  not  in  him  be  the  an- 
swer of  a  good  conscience.  He  does  not  know  whether 
the  ceremony  is  right  or  wrong,  and  of  cour^ie  his  con- 
science neither  approves,  nor  condemns  the  action.  Let 
us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  Pedobaptism  is  true,  and  thea 
in  the  millennium  all  parents  are  believers,  and  all  childrea 
are  baptized  in  infancy  ;  when  this  is  the  case,  will  not  this 
general  definition  of  baptism  cease  to  be  true  ?  will  it  any 
longer  be  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God? 
If  any  one  will  say  that  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
is  found  not  in  the  subject  of  baptism,  but  in  the  infant's 
parent,  or  sponsor,  we  will  call  upon  him  to  exhibit,  if  he 
can,  one  syllable  in  the  word  of  God,  that  gives  the  least 
proof  that  the  good  conscience  is  to  be  answered,  not  ia 
the  subject  of  baptism,  but  in  his  proxy.  It  is  true,  that 
in  the  baptism  of  an  infant  there  may  be  a  washing  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  where  is  the  answer  of  a 
good  conscience  toward  God  ?  Can  it  be  found  in  that 
tender  age,  alike  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  of 
all  moral  obligation?  Beside,  if  all  infants  in  the  millen- 
nium are  baptized,  will  not  every  ambassador  of  Christ 
then  be  under  the  necessity,-  when  he  recites  his  commis- 
sion, to  change  the  order  of  its  words  somewhat,  to  make 
it  speak  truly?  Can  he  then  say,  "He  that  believeth, 
and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved?"  or  must  be  not  reverse 
the  order,  and  say,  ''  he  that  is  baptized^  and  believes  after' 
■asards^  shall  be  saved."  No  one  can  with  propriety  re- 
tort and  say,  that  in  that  day  there  will  be  no  need  of  ex- 
hortations to  believe  and  be  baptized,  unless  he  is  pre- 
pared to  maintain  that  all  faith,  in  that  happy  period,  will 
be  miraculously  produced  in  all  infants  as  soon  as  they 
are  born, 

3.  Baptism  is  designed  to  be  a  badge  of  our  public 
profession.  Says  Paul,  ''  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  What  is 
meant  by  putting  on  Christ?  This  text  will  be  best  ex- 
plained by  quoting  parallel  passages,     "  Put  off,  concern- 


76  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

ing  the  former  conversation,  the  old  man,  which  is  cor- 
rupt, according  to  the  deceitful  lust ;  and  be  renewed  in 
the  spirit  of  your  mind;  and  that  ye  may  put  on  the  new 
man,  which,  after  God,  is  created  in  righteousness  and 
true  holiness."  Eph.  iv.  22,  23,  24.  Putting  on  Christ, 
then,  means  the  same  as  putting  on  the  new  man;  and 
this  new  man  is  created  by  the  power  of  God,  in  right- 
eousness and  true  holiness.  Putting  on  Christ,  is  the 
same  as  having  the  heart  and  spirit  renewed,  and  pos- 
sessing so  much  of  the  temper  and  disposition  of  Christ, 
as  to  resemble  him  in  his  spirit  and  conduct.  Mr.  Locke 
explains  the  phrase,  putting  on  Christ,  thus  :  "  God  now 
looking  on  them,  there  appears  nothing  but  Christ,  they 
are,  as  it  were,  covered  all  over  with  him,  as  a  man  is 
with  the  clothes  that  he  hath  put  on ;  and  hence  in  the 
next  verse  it  is  said,  they  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus,  as 
if  there  were  but  that  one  person."  But  if  Paul  had  bap- 
tized all  the  unbelieving  children,  and  infants,  and  ser- 
vants, of  all  the  professors  among  the  Galatians,  who 
gave  no  evidence  that  they,  by  regeneration,  had  put  on 
Christ,  how  could  he  in  this  case  say,  that  "  as  many  of 
you,  or  all  of  you,  who  have  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
Lave  put  on  Christ,"  when  at  the  same  time  a  great  por- 
tion of  those,  who  had  been  baptized,  had  never  put  on 
Christ?  On  the  whole,  does  not  the  Apostle  here  teach 
us,  that  all  who  had  been  baptized  into  Chiist,  had  exhib- 
ited qualitications,  of  which  infants  are  utterly  incapable 
of  manifesting  ?  They  can  exhibit  no  evidence,  unless  by 
miracle,  that  they  have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  deeds, 
and  put  on  ihe  new  man,  with  air  his  christian  graces. 

4.  Baptism  was  designed  to  be  a  symbolical  represen- 
tation of  our  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  to 
newness  of  life.  In  this  way  it  also  becomes  a  sign  of 
our  fellowship  and  communion  with  Christ,  in  his  death, 
and  burial,  and  resurrection  from  the  grave.  This  opin- 
ion of  the  design  of  baptism  has  been  believed  and  sup- 
ported by  the  most  eminent  divines  in  all  ages  of  the 
church.  In  proof  of  this  we  could  produce  many  testi- 
monies. Says  Dr.  J.  Goodwin,  ''  The  covenant  there  sig- 
nified and  represented  by  baptism,  is  not  simply  the  blood 
of  Christ  as  it  washeth  us  from  sin,  there  is  a  farther  rep- 
resentation therein  of  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resur- 
rection, in  the  baptized's  being  tirst  buried  under  the  wa- 
ter, and  then  rising  out  of  it ;  and  this  is  not  in  a  bare 


LETTERS    ON     BAPJISM.  tl 

conformity  unto  Christ,  but  a  representation  of  a  commu- 
nion with  Christ  in  his  death  and  resurrection."  See 
Christ  set  forth,  pp.  82,  83,  as  quoted  by  Booth  It 
seems  that  the  apostle  Paul  was  of  this  same  opinion. 
Hence  he  says,  '"•  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were 
baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death. 
Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death, 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead,  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  new- 
ness of  lite.*'  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  Mc'Knight,  in  his  notes  on 
this  place,  says,  '•  Christ  submitted  to  be  baptized,  that  is, 
to  be  buried  under  the  water,  by  John,  and  to  be  raised  out 
of  it  again,  as  an  emblem  of  his  future  death  and  resur- 
rection. In  like  manner  the  baptism  of  believers  is  em- 
blematical of  their  own  death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 
The  burying  of  Christ  and  believers,  first  in  the  water  of 
baptism,  and  afterward  in  the  earth,  is  fitly  enough  com- 
pared to  the  planting  of  seeds  in  the  earth,  because  the 
effect  in  both  cases  is  a  reviviscence  to  a  state  of  greater 
perfection.  Our  baptism,  setting  these  things  before  us, 
the  daily  recollection  of  it,  ought  to  stir  us  up  to  every 
religious  and  virtuous  action,  that  we  may  be  meet  for 
the  society  of  God  and  Christ  forever." 

In  Col.  ii.  12,  we  read,  ^'  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God."  This  same  critic  notes  on  these 
words:  "Christ  began  his  ministry  with  receiving  bap- 
tism from  John,  to  show  in  an  emblematical  manner,  that 
he  was  to  die,  and  to  rise  again  from  the  dead.  And  af- 
ter his  resurrection  he  commanded  his  disciples  to  initiate 
mankind  into  his  religion,  by  baptizing  them,  as  he  him- 
self had  been  baptized,  (and  that  the  Dr  has  told  us,  was 
by  putting  him  under  water,)  to  show  that  although  they 
shall  die  like  him,  through  the  malignity  of  sin,  yet  as 
certainly  as  he  rose  from  the  dead,  believers  shall  be 
raised  at  the  last  day.  Wherefore  his  disciples,  having 
been  baptized,  as  he  was,  and  for  the  very  same  purpose, 
they  are  titly  said  to  be  buried  \s'\\.{\  Christ  in  baptism ; 
and  in  baptism  to  be  raised  with  him." 

If  baptism  be  designed  to  be  an  expressive  symbol  of 
our  spiritual  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  then  immer- 
sion roust  be  the  mode.  Change  it  into  sprinkling,  and 
this  design  vanishes  from  the  view,  and  it  ceases  to  be  a 
siga  of  our  fellowship  with  Christ.  Who  will  pretend, 
G  2 


78  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

that  opposite  sets  of  symbols  will  equally  well  express  the. 
same  ideas  ?  We  might  as  well  say,  that  the  declaration, 
John  is  buried  in  bis  grave,  may  be  just  as  naturally  and 
impressively  expressed  by  this  different  combination  of 
words,  viz.  John  has  had  a  few  particles  of  earth  scatter- 
ed on  his  face. 

If  we  are  correct  in  our  views  of  the  import  of  bap- 
tism, then  its  application  is  fixed  to  believers.  Apply  it 
to  a  new  born  babe,  is  it  then  an  outward  sign,  that  the 
infant  is  the  subject  of  spiritual  death,  that  his  old  man  is 
buried,  that  he  has  been  raised  to  walk  in  newness  of  life, 
that  he  has  repented  and  believed,  that  he  has  put  on 
Christ,  and  is  ingrafted  into  his  mystic  body,  and  that 
"with  him  he  holds  a  spiritual  and  sensible  communion  and 
fellowship  ?  I  know  that  some  say  that  baptism  when  ap- 
plied to  adults  is  a  sign  of  inward  purity,  but  when  applied 
to  an  infant,  it  is  a  sign  that  it  is  polluted,  and  needs  cleans- 
ing. What  evidence  have  we,  my  brethren,  that  bap- 
tism is  designed  to  signify  one  thing,  when  applied  to  one 
person,  but  a  different  thing  when  applied  to  a  different 
individual  ?  Do  the  scriptures  teach  us  that  it  is  in  some 
the  sign  of  inward  purity,  but  in  others  the  sign  of  inward 
pollution,  and  the  need  of  renovation  ? 

I  am,  kc. 


LETTER   XV. 

THE     DESIGN     OF     CIRCUMCISION     CONSIDERED,     AND    SHOWN    TO 
BE    DIFFERENT    FROM    THAT    OF    BAPTISM. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

We  are  sensible  that  much  has  been  said  and  written 
respecting  the  covenant  of  grace,  and  the  covenant  of 
circumcision.  Some  have  maintained  their  identity ; 
others,  their  individuality.  For  the  present,  we  shall 
pass  this  debate,  because  even  should  we  admit  the  one- 
ness of  these  two  covenants,  we  should  not  be  obliged  to 
adopt  infant  baptism  as  the  legitimate  consequence  of 
this  admission.  For  if  circumcision  and  baptism  be  dif- 
ferent in  their  nature  and  design,  then  there  is  no  con- 
clusive reasoning  from  the  former  to  the  latter. 

The  reasoning,  on  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  if  we 
rightly  apprehend,  is  this :  This  coYenant  is  spiritual  and 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  79 

CFerlasting.  In  it  God  promised  to  make  Abraham  the 
spiritual  father  of  a  spiritual  seed,  among  his  natural  de- 
scendants, and  that  circumcision  was  a  pledge  from  God 
that  he  would  faithfully  execute  this  promise ;  that  in 
this  promise  all  successive  believing  parents  became  in- 
terested, and  that  circumcision  was  performed  on  their 
children  as  the  renewed  pledge  that  God  would  be  faith- 
ful to  them  respectively,  in  rearing  up  a  spiritual  seed  in 
their  posterity.  This  same  promise  is  made,  they  say, 
to  christian  parents  and  to  their  seed,  and  therefore  bap- 
tism, the  changed  seal  of  this  covenant,  must  be  adminis- 
tered to  their  children,  as  a  continued  pledge  from  God 
that  he  will  keep  his  word  and  make  them  the  spiritual 
parents  of  a  spiritual  seed. 

Now  this  process  of  argument  takes  for  granted  two 
things  which  require  proof,  and  which  are  by  no  means 
conceded:  viz.  1.  That  circumcision  was  a  sacred  pledge 
from  God,  that  he  would  rear  up  to  each  believing  parent 
a  spiritual  'seed  among  his  posterity  ;  and  2.  That  bap- 
tism is  a  substituted  pledge  for  the  same  things.  If  both 
these  positions  are  on  examination  found  to  be  incorrect, 
then  all  arguments  drawn  from  them  must  be  equally  in- 
correct and  inconclusive.  Or,  in  other  words,  if  circum- 
cision were  not  intended  to  be  a  divine  pledge  to  parents, 
that  they  should  become  spiritual  fathers  to  a  spiritual 
offspring,  and  if  baptism  be  not  its  substitute,  but  is  dif- 
ferent in  its  nature  and  design,  then  the  supposed  simi- 
larity between  the  two  rites  vanishes;  and  all  arguments 
in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  resting  ou  this  supposed 
similarity,  fall  to  the  ground. 

1  do  not  deny  but  God  has  made  many  gracious  prom- 
ises to  believing  parents,  respecting  their  seed.  But  I 
believe  circumcision  was  not  designed  as  a  pledge  from 
him  that  he  would  fulfil  them.  For  if  it  were  to  be  so 
viewed  in  relation  to  one  parent,  without  doubt  it  must 
be  so  viewed  in  relation  to  all  parents.  Hence,  upon  this 
plan,  Ishraael,  when  he  became  a  parent  would  have  a  right 
to  consider  his  circumcision  as  a  pledge  from  God,  that 
he  had  entered  into  the  same  covenant  with  him,  that  he 
had  made  with  his  father,  and  that  he,  on  given  con- 
ditions, was  to  become  a  spiritual  father  of  a  numerous 
spiritual  seed,  and  that  God  would  collect  a  church  out  of 
his  descendants.  But  you  see,  my  brethren,  that  all  this 
is  directly  io  opposition  to  the  word  of  God.    It  is  there 


80  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

said,  to  the  exclusion  of  Ishmael,  "  But  my  covenant  will 
1  establish  with  Isaac.''''  It  is  true  that  he  was  blessed, 
and  was  to  be  multiplied  exceedingly,  and  to  become  a 
great  nation  ;  but  these  blessings  were  not  conferred  on 
him  because  God  had  made  with  him  a  covenant  similar 
to  that  with  Abraham.  Did  circumcision  seal  to  the  sons 
of  Abraham,  by  Keturah,  that  they  too  should  become 
spiritual  fathers,  and  that  the  covenant  of  grace  should 
descend  in  their  line?  Had  Esau  a  right  to  view  his  cir- 
cumcision as  a  pledge  from  God,  that  he  would  take  out 
of  his  natural  posterity  a  holy  seed,  a  peculiar  people  ? 
If  this  be  true,  why  was  not  Esau's  standing  as  good  as 
Jacob's?  Upon  this  plan  both  were  in  the  same  covenant, 
both  had  the  same  promises,  and  both  had  the  same 
pledge  of  their  fulfilment.  But  what  saith  the  scriptures 
on  this  point?  ^^  Neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  are  they  all  children,  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed 
be  called — The  children  of  the  promise  are  counted  for 
the  seed.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved,  but  Esau 
have  I  hated."      Rom.  ix.  7,  13. 

When  this  rite  was  performed  upon  the  children  of 
Ishmael,  of  Esau,  of  the  sons  of  Keturah,  and  on  the  chil- 
dren of  heathen  proselytes,  was  it  to  these  parents  re- 
spectively a  sacred  pledge  from  God,  that  he  had  es- 
tablished the  covenant  of  circumcision  with  them,  and 
that  he  would  on  certain  conditions  fulfil  to  them,  and  to 
iheir  children,  its  promises?  If  this  be  true,  then  each  of 
these  individuals  was  as  truly  in  this  covenant,  as  was 
Abraham  ;  and  when  they  like  him  believed  in  Christ, 
then  they  might  plead  the  covenant  promise,  that  God 
would  make  them,  respeciively,  exceedingly  fruitful; 
that  they  should  become  the  renowned  ancestors  of  na- 
tions and  kings;  that  they  in  their  turn  should  become 
Abrahams,  and  be  the  spiritual  fathers  of  all  born  into  the 
kingdom  after  them;  the  inheritors  of  the  promised  land, 
and  the  heirs  of  the  world.  For  all  these  blessings,  and 
more,  were  promised  to  Abraham,  and  if  they  stood  ex- 
actly in  the  same  covenant  with  him,  then  certainly  they 
would  become  heirs  to  the  same  promised  blessings. 
Now  if  circumcision  did  seal  covenant  blessings  to  these 
individuals,  why  then  were  they  so  often  excluded  the 
covenant?  It  is  said,  "•  in  Isaac,"  not  in  Ishmael,  *'iQ 
Jacob,"  Dot  in  Esau,  '^  will  I  establish  my  covenant.     The 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  81 

son  of  the  bond  woman  shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son  of 
the  free  woman." 

Nor  was  circumcision,  when  applied  to  the  seed  of  be- 
lievers after  Abraham's  time,  a  pledge  from  God  that  he 
would  fulfil  to  them  respectively  and  in  succession  the 
same  promises,  which  he  had  made  to  Abraham  in  the  17th 
chapter  of  Genesis ;  because,  as  before,  on  this  plan  each 
believing  parent  could,  while  standing  in  the  place  of 
Abraham,  claim  by  promise  great  earthly  prosperity,  a 
large  landed  estate,  a  numerous  offspring,  the  honour  of 
being  the  parent  of  kings  and  nations,  the  heir  of  the 
world,  and  father  of  the  church.  The  truth  is,  as  Dr. 
Emmons  hath  well  observed,  "  there  is  no  evidence,  in 
the  New-Testament,  that  believers  are  now  in  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  ;  but  clear  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
For,  they  are  neither  under  obligation  to  perform  the 
duties  of  that  covenant,  nor  entitled  to  any  of  its  peculiar 
blessings.  The  bond  of  that  covenant  does  not  lie  upon 
them  ;  for  they  are  not  required  to  circumcise  either 
themselves  or  their  families.  And  it  is  equally  evident, 
that  they  are  not  entitled  to  any  of  the  peculiar  blessings  of 
that  covenant.  In  that  covenant,  God  promised  to  give 
Abraham  a  numerous  posterity  ;  but  he  makes  no  such 
promise  to  believers  under  the  gospel.  In  that  covenant, 
God  promised,  that  Abraham's  seed  should  possess  the 
land  of  Canaan ;  but  he  makes  no  such  promise  to  be- 
lievers under  the  gospel.  In  that  covenant,  God  prom- 
ised, that  Abraham's  seed  should  enjoy  great  temporal 
prosperity  ;  but  he  makes  no  such  promise  to  believers 
under  the  gospel.  In  that  covenant,  God  promised,  that 
the  Messiah  should  descend  from  his  family;  but  that 
promise  was  fully  accomplished  at  the  incarnation  of 
Christ." 

But  it  is  time  to  express  positively  our  belief,  respect- 
ing the  design  of  circumcision. —  1st.  It  was  designed  to 
prefigure  the  necessity  of  regeneration, — Rom.  ii.  28,29. 
"  For  he  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  outwardly  ;  neither 
is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  r  But  he 
is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  :  and  circumcision  is  that 
of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter  ;  whose 
praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God."  Gal.  vi.  15.  "  For  in 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  any  thing,  nor 
uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature."  Col  ii.  11.  '*•  In 
whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 


82  LETTERS  ON    BAPTISM. 

without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the 
flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  This  rite,  when  ap- 
plied to  infants,  was  designed  to  show  the  want  of  a  new 
heart,  not  the  actual  possession  of  it. 

2.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  from  God  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Abraham's  faith,  which  he  had  previous  to  his  re- 
ceiving that  rite.  Or,  in  other  words,  circumcision  was 
to  be,  in  all  its  repetitions,  a  pledge  from  God,  that  all  who 
believed  in  Christ  should  have  this  their  faith  imputed  to 
them  for  righteousness,  in  lieu  of  perfect  obedience. 
Circumcision  spoke  this  gospel  truth,  whether  put  upon 
Isaac  or  Ishmael,  Jews  or  Gentiles.  In  all  its  exhibitions, 
it  held  up  the  gracious  encouragement,  that  those  who 
believed  in  Christ,  of  whatever  nation,  should  be  counted 
righteous  persons,  and  be  delivered  from  the  curse  of  the 
law. 

That  this  view  of  the  design  of  circumcision  is  correct, 
is  confirmed  by  what  is  said  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans. In  this  chapter  the  apostle  treats  of  the  blessed- 
ness of  those  whose  faith  is  imputed  to  them  for  righteous- 
ness without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Says  he,  verse  3d, 
"Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness."  Ver.  6 — 12, ''  Even  as  David  also  describ- 
eth  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto  whom  the  Lord  im- 
puteth  righteousness  without  works.  Saying,  blessed  are 
they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sins  are 
covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will  not 
impute  sin.  Cometh  this  blessedness  then  upon  the  cir- 
cumcision only ;  or  upon  the  uncircumcision  also  ?  For 
we  say  that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteous- 
ness. How  was  it  then  reckoned  ?  When  he  was  in  cir- 
cumcision, or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision, 
but  in  uncircumcision.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he 
had,  yet  being  uncircumcised ;  that  he  might  be  the  fath- 
er of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circum- 
cised ;  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  unto  them 
also  ;  and  the  father  of  circumcision  to  them,  who  are  not 
of  the  circumcision  only,  but  who  also  walk  in  the  steps 
of  that  faith  of  our  father  Abraham,  which  he  had,  being 
uncircumcised."  Here  we  are  taught  that  the  blessed- 
ness of  having  faith  imputed  for  righteousness  came  upon 
Abraham  before  he  was  circumcised,  and  that  it  was  thus 
imputed  before  this  rite  for  several  reasons.     And  1st, 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM*  83 

That  this  righteousness  of  faith  might  be  sealed  by 
circnmcision  ;  2nd,  That  he  might  become  the  father 
of  all  them  that  believe,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles  ;  that 
righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them  also.  In  the  last 
part  of  this  chapter  we  learn,  that  an  account  of  this  im- 
putation and  sealing  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  was  not 
written  for  Abraham's  private  interest  only,  but  for  the 
benefit  of  his  spiritual  children.  Verses  23,24,  "Now 
it  was  not  written  for  his  sake  alone,  that  it  was  imputed 
to  him.  But  for  us  also  to  whom  it  shall  be  imputed,  if 
we  believe  on  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  our  Lord  from  the 
dead."  Here  we  learn  that  circumcision  sealed  the  great 
gospel  truth,  that  faith  in  the  promised  seed,  the  Messiah, 
should  be  counted  for  righteousness;  and  that  this  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  was  exhibited  for  the  design 
to  instruct  and  comfort  all  succeeding  believers,  to  the 
coming  of  Christ.  it  was  a  seal  of  the  general  gospel 
truth,  that  faith  in  Christ  should  be  imputed  for  righteous- 
ness. It  spoke  this  gracious  language  to  Jew  and  to 
Gentile. 

From  this  view  of  the  design  of  circumcision,  let  us 
turn  to  baptism,  and  see  if  this  rite  be  designed  for  the 
same  thing.  If  it  be  a  seal  of  the  same  truth,  a  sign  of 
the  same  thing,  and  the  same  pre-requisite  for  admission 
into  the  church,  then  there  may  be  some  safety  in  reason- 
ing from  one  to  the  other. 

Where  then  is  the  passage  in  the  whole  New-Testa- 
ment that  teaches  us,  or  that  will  lead  us  fairly  to  con- 
clude that  baptism  is  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  fiiith? 
It  is  no  where  called  a  seal  of  the  covenant,  or  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  or  a  sign  of  faith,  or  token  to  recog- 
nize, as  Pedobaptists  say,  the  constituted  relation  between 
believing  parents  and  their  children.  No  intimation  is 
given  that  it  was  intended  as  a  pledge  from  God  that  he 
would  fulfil  to  professing  parents  the  same  promises 
which  he  made  to  Abraham. 

Let  us  now  more  briefly  show  the  difference  between 
these  two  rites.  Circumcision  was  a  mark  of  national 
distinction ;  but  baptism  is  a  mark  to  distinguish  individual 
saints  from  sinners.  Circumcision  was  generall)'  a  sign  of 
the  want  of  a  new  heart ;  but  baptism  is  an  outward  sign 
of  that,  which  already  exists.  Circumcision  looked  for- 
ward to  something  to  come ;  but  baptism  looks  hack  to 
something  already  come.    Circumcision  was  typical^  bap- 


84  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

tism  commemorative.  Circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness  offaith^  but  baptism  is  no  such  seal.  Circumcis- 
ion was  expressly  confined  to  males,  but  baptism  is  to  be 
applied  to  believers  of  both  sexes.  Circumcision  did  not 
demand  faith  and  repentance  as  prerequisites  for  its  re- 
ception ;  but  the  law  of  baptism  demands  of  all  faith  as  a 
qualification  for  its  due  reception.  Circumcision  might 
be  administered  by  any  private  head  of  a  family  ;  but  bap- 
tism is  to  be  administered  only  by  regular  ministers  of 
Christ.  Baptism  is  an  outward  sign  of  our  communion 
and  fellowship  with  Christ ;  but  circumcision  was  gene- 
rally an  outward  sign  that  the  subject  of  it  was  not  yet  pre- 
pared for  this  union  and  fellowship  with  Christ.  By  com- 
paring these  two  rites,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  they  were 
different  in  nature,  design  and  practical  purposes.  This 
difi*erence  between  the  two  ceremonies  destroys  the  force 
of  the  whole  system  of  analogical  reasoning  from  one  to 
the  other. 

1  am,  &(?. 


LETTER  XVL 

MORE  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES  CONSIDERED. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

Having  attended  to  the  history  of  the  church,  as  record- 
ed in  Acts,  I  will  now  proceed  to  some  other  passages  in 
the  word  of  God,  which  are  viewed  as  favouring  Pedo- 
baptism. 

The  first  that  1  shall  mention,  is  the  text  in  Jer.  xxx.  20. 
"  Their  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime."  Great  re- 
liance has  been  made  on  these  words,  as  supporting  Pedo- 
baptism.  But  let  any  one  consult  the  context,  and  he 
will  be  satisfied  that  it  contains  a  prediction  of  the  resto- 
ration of  the  Jews  from  their  captivity  in  Babylon.  See 
▼erse  18.  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,  behold  I  will  bring 
again  the  captivity  of  Jacob's  tents — and  the  city  shall 
be  builded  upon  her  own  heap,  and  the  palace  shall  re- 
main," &c.  Says  Pool,  "  This  verse  manifestly  is  a 
promise  of  the  rebuilding  of  the  city,  and  was  fulfilled  in 
the  times  of  Ezra."  In  commenting  on  the  20th  verse,  he  re- 
marks, "  Their  posterity  also  shall  be  as  happy,  and  in  as 
much  repute  as  they  were  before  this  carrying  into  Baby- 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  85 

Ion."  This  verse  contains  a  promise  long  since  fulfilled^ 
and  has  no  reference  to  infant  baptism. 

The  next  thai  1  shall  mention,  is  the  famed  text,  found 
in  Mark  x.  14.  "Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
God.*'  Mr.  Scott  and  others  grant  that  these  children 
had  not  been  admitted  to  baptism.  They  came  there  un- 
baptized.  They  were  not  brought  to  receive  that  cere- 
mony, but  to  obtain  his  blessing.  When  Christ  had  pray- 
ed and  blessed  them,  they  went  away,  as  they  came,  un- 
baptized.  All  these  circumstances,  one  would  think, 
were  rather  forbidding  to  Pedobaptism.  They  were  not 
baptized  before  they  were  brought ;  they  were  not 
brought  for  this  purpose  ;  they  did  not  receive  it  while 
present ;  and  without  it  they  retired.  It  is  difficult  to  see 
how  all  these  negatives^  respecting  infant  baptism,  can  be 
framed  into  an  argument  to  enforce  that  practice. 

I  know  it  is  said  that  their  membership  in  the  kingdona 
of  heaven,  is  the  ground  on  which  this  rite  is  supported. 
Here  a  question  arises,  what  is  meant  by  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?  If  it  here  mean  the  future  world  of  glory,  as  is 
most  likely,  then  another  question  arises,  what  constitut- 
ed these  children  heirs  of  that  kingdom  ?  Was  it  the  faith 
of  their  parents?  Then  it  will  follow,  that  all  infants  of 
unbelieving  parents,  when  they  die,  are  lost  forever  !  be- 
cause their  parents  were  destitute  of  that  faith,  whick 
would  have  made  their  children  heirs  of  life.  But  if  they 
were  constituted  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  by  cir- 
cumstances common  to  all  infants,  then  the  argument 
drawn  from  this  text  becomes  too  sweeping  ;  it  will  en- 
force the  baptism  of  all  infants,  whether  their  parents  are 
christians  or  infidels. 

In  our  remarks  thus  far  on  this  text,  we  have  employ- 
ed what  logicians  would  call  "  argumentum  ad  hominem,'^ 
or  have  taken  our  opponents  on  their  own  ground.  They 
consider  the  word  such  as  a  term,  which  in  this  place  ex- 
presses identit}'^,  but  not  comparison.  This  opinion  of 
theirs  is  by  no  means  certain.  The  question  is,  did  Christ 
mean  to  say,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  made  up  in 
part  of  these  identical  children  ?  Or  of  those  adult  indi- 
viduals who  were  like  these  little  children,  not  in  age 
and  size,  but  in  a  bumble  and  docile  spirit  ?  If  the  word 
such  here  expresses  conipari«on.  -^nJ  n^^t  identity,  thea 
the  passage  affords  no  bupport  to  Fedobaptism.  In  the 
H 


S6  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

context,  and  other  places,  Christ  used  the  words  such,  as^ 
like^  &c.  in  relation  to  children,  not  as  terms  of  identity, 
but  to  express  that  resemblance,  which  in  several  points 
exists  between  christians  and  little  children.  "  And  Jesus 
called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of 
them,  and  said,  verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye 
be  converted  and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever,  there- 
fore, shall  humble  himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same 
is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  No  one  sup- 
poses that  Christ  here  meant  to  teach  that  we  must  shrink 
into  the  size  and  age  of  little  children,  but  that  we  must 
in  certain  points  resemble  them  in  the  temper  of  our 
heart.  "  Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of 
God  as  a  little  child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein."  Does 
not  Christ  here  mean  to  say,  that  adults  must  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  in  that  humble,  meek,  and  depending 
temper,  which  will  make  them  appear  like  or  as  little 
children?  So  when  he  said,  "  Of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,"  he  used  the  word  such^  we  believe,  as  a  term  of 
comparison.  This  some  deny,  and  say,  that  the  words  of 
such^  are  equivalent  to  the  words  of  the  same.  According 
to  this,  let  us  see  how  the  text  will  read.  "  Suffer  the 
little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,"  for 
these  same  little  children  "  are  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Did  he  then  mean  to  say,  that  these  little  children  con- 
stituted the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  From  the  absurdity 
which  results  from  saying  the  word  such  expresses  identi- 
ty, we  conclude  that  it  must  express  resemblance.  A  com- 
parison is  instituted.  But  between  whom  ?  between  two 
sets  of  children,  or  between  children  and  adults?  Let  the 
comparison  be  between  children  and  adults,  and  the 
sense  is  natural.  "  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  un- 
to me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of  such,  [as  resemble 
them]  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  You  will  not,  my  breth- 
ren, suppose  that  by  these  remarks,  I  mean  to  argue 
against  the  salvation  of  infants.  Yea,  to  them  I  view  this 
very  passage  as  peculiarly  auspicious.  Christ  took  them 
up  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  them,  and  said,  of  such,  or  of 
those  who  are  like  them,  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  Mr. 
Scott,  and  others,  tell  us  that  these  children  had  been  cir- 
cumcised, and  this  rite  was  not  then  abolished,  and  there- 
fore their  baptism  was  unnecessary  and  improper.  Why 
theft  was  not  baptism  unaecessary  and  improper  for  any 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  87 

0f  the  immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord  ?  They  too  had 
been  circumcised. 

The  next  passage  on  which  I  shall  remark  is  found  in 
1  Cor.  vii.  12,  13,  14.  "  if  any  brother  hath  a  wife  that 
believeth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let 
him  not  put  her  away.  And  the  woman  that  hath  an  hus- 
band, that  believeth  not,  and  if  he  be  pleased  to  dwell 
with  her,  let  her  not  leave  him.  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctitied  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  by  the  husband  :  else  were  your  children  un- 
clean, but  now  are  they  holy."  It  appears  from  a  care- 
ful inspection  of  this  chapter,  that  in  Corinth  some  doubt- 
ed the  propriety  of  entering  or  continuing  in  the  mar- 
riage state,  under  any  circumstances.  They  wrote  to 
Paul,  desiring  him  to  solve  their  scruples*  In  reply,  he 
took  up  several  cases,  told  the  believer  not  to 
leave  his  or  her  unbelieving  companion,  and  thc^n  gave 
his  reason  for  this  direction:  "  For  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band i-  sanctitied  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctitied  by  the  husband."  Here  we  are  told  that  liie 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  or  to  the  wife.  To 
sanctify,  is  to  make  holy.  The  unbelieving  husband  then 
is  made  holy.  This  holiness  cannot  mean  internal  purity, 
because  he  was  an  unbeliever.  His  holiness  must  be 
either  a  ceremonial,  or  a  civil  holiness. 

The  same  kind  of  holiness,  possessed  by  the  father,  is 
without  doubt  conveyed  to  his  children.  If  then  both  the 
unbelieving  parent  and  his  dUildren  possess  the  same  cere- 
monial holiness,  why  not  admit  both  to  the  same  rite  ?  Both 
have  the  same  qualifications.  If  the  holiness  of  the  chil- 
dren be  a  good  argument,  as  Pedobaptists  say,  why  they 
should  be  baptized,  why  is  it  not  an  equally  good  argu- 
ment to  enforce  the  baptism  of  the  unbelieving  husband 
or  unbelieving  wife  ?  Here  is  a  child  and  his  mother,  both 
possessing  the  same  kind  and  the  same  degree  of  holiness. 
Will  you  admit  the  child  into  the  visible  church  because 
he  is  sanctified  and  made  holy,  while  you  repel  the  moth- 
er, though  she  be  equally  holy  ?  Should  she  ask  you  to 
tell  her,  how  you  proved  that  her  holiness  was  no  reason 
why  she  should  be  admitted  to  the  ordinances  of  the 
church,  while  you  maintained  that  the  holiness  of  her 
chijd  was  the  sole  reason,  why  he  was  received,  would 
you  not  find  it  somewhat  difficult  to  make  a  satisfactory 
reply  ?  Could  you  invalidate  the  claims  of  the  mother, 


88  LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM. 

without  equally  invalidating  the  claims  of  the  child  ?  But 
if  the  holiness  of  the  unbelieving"  partner  be  civil,  as  I  be- 
lieve, or  that  which  sanctifies  the  marriage  bond,  the 
"Same  kind  must  be  imparted  to  the  children,  and  then  this 
text  furnishes  no  ground  for  Pedobaptism. 

Before  we  can  accede  to  the  exposition  usually  given  to 
this  text,  we  wish  to  have  the  following  objections  remov- 
ed. 

1.  The  usual  manner  of  construing  the< passage  places 
the  right  of  infants  to  baptism  on  the  legality  of  marriage. 
It  is,  if  1  mistake  not,  agreed  that  the  sanctity  imparted  to 
the  unbeliever,  is  that  something  which  consecrated  the 
marriage  bond.  Now  the  apostle  has  told  us  that  with- 
out this  sanctification  of  the  matrimonial  state,  their  chil- 
dren would  hav^  been  unclean;  "else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean,"  i.  e.  as  some  say,  not  fit  for  baptism.  But 
restore  this  sanctity,  and  then  their  children  would  have 
been  clean,  i.  e.  fit  for  baptism.  Is  not  this  placing  their 
right  to  this  ordinance  on  the  legality  of  marriage  ?  On  this 
plan,  if  David  and  Bethsheba  were  now  living,  their  first 
child  could  not  be  admitted  to  this  rite,  notwithstanding 
all  the  faith  and  penitence  of  his  father,  because  it  was 
begotten  out  of  wedlock. 

in  passing,  I  will  just  observe,  that  I  do  not  suppose  the 
sanctity  which  the  apostle  here  mentions  came  into  exist- 
ence after  one  of  the  parties  became  a  believer ;  but  it 
was  commensurate  with  their  marriage  bond.  To  say 
that  it  began  at  the  conversiorf^f  one  of  the  parties,  would 
be  nullifying,  at  one  sweeping  stroke,  every  marriage 
contract  throughout  the  pagan  world.* 

2.  This  exposition  perpetuates  that  ceremonial  un- 
cleanness,  which  God  has  removed.  "  Else  were  your 
children  unclean."  That  is,  say  they,  possessed  of  the 
ceremonial  uncleanness,  which  existed  between  the  Jews 
and  Gentiles,  and  which  render  them  unfit  for  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel.  But  this  kind  of  uncleanness  before  this, 
was  done  away  by  the  express  command  of  God.  See 
Acts  X.  15.  "  What  God  hath  cleansed,  that  call  not  thou 
common."  This  was  said  in  immediate  reference  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  with  a  design  to  convince  Peter  that  he 
might  go  and  preach  to  Cornelius,  a  Gentile,  because 
that  ceremonial  uncleanness,  which   had  long  subsisted 

•  The  verb  in  the  original  is  in  the  perfect  passive  time.  The 
unbelieving  husband  has  been  made  holy  by  the  wife. 


XETIERS    ON    BAPTISM.  89 

between  them  and  the  Jews  was  abolished.  But  do  not 
those  perpetuate  this  distinction,  who  maintain  that  the 
children  of  non-professors  are  unclean  like  the  ancient 
Pagans,  in  relation  to  the  Jews? 

3.  This  exposition  involves  the  absurdity  that  the 
brethren  at  Corinth  knew  that  their  children  wen'  holy, 
and  had  baptized  them  as  such,  when  at  the  same  time 
they  were  ignorant  of  the  existence  of-  the  very  catise 
which  made  them  holy.  The  unbelieving  husband  is 
sanctified  by  or  to  the  wife,  else,  or  if  it  were  not  so, 
your  children  would  be  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy. 
Here  we  are  taught,  my  brethren,  that  the  sanctity  of 
the  marriage  bond  was  the  very  cause  of  the  holiness  of 
their  children.  But  of  this  sanctifying  cause  they  were 
wholly  ignorant.  Yea,  they  strongly  feared  that  their 
marriage  union  was  unholy.  Yet  it  is  said  that  those  very 
parents  had  gotten  their  children  baptized  as  holy.  But 
what  could  lead  them  to  believe  their  children  were  ho- 
ly, and  to  treat  them  as  such,  when  at  the  same  time  they 
were  wholly  ignorant  of  the  very  and  only  cause  of  their 
holiness,  viz.  the  holiness  of  their  marriage  covenant  ? 

Finally,  the  interpretation  usually  put  on  this  text 
makes  Paul  reason  at  a  singular  rale.  It  makes  him  as- 
sign the  baptism  of  infants  as  an  argument  to  prove  the 
sanctity  of  the  married  state,  between  a  believer  and  an 
unbeliever.  It  represents  him  as  virtually  saying  to  those 
doubting  christians  at  Corinth,  '^  You,  my  brethren,  might 
have  known  that  your  scruples,  respecting  cohabiting 
with  your  unbelieving  partners,  were  altogether  ground- 
less, if  you  had  only  reflected  how  I  baptized  your  chiU 
dren,  when  with  you,  and  considered  them  as  holy  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  which  I  never  should  have  done,  had 
not  your  continuance  in  marriage  been  proper.  By  bap- 
tizing your  children,  I  furnished  you  with  a  sure  argument 
tha:  your  marriage  was  lawful." 

To  conclude,  my  brethren,  we  observe,  if  the  holiness 
here  mean  federal  holiness,  the  text  proves  too  much  ; 
and  if  it  mean  civil,  it  proves  nothing  to  the  point.  Take 
it  as  you  please,  it  gives  no  aid  to  Pedobaptism. 

Col.  ii.  11.  ^Mn  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with 
the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the 
body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of 
Christ."  This  text  is  cited  as  proof  that  baptism  is  sub- 
stituted for  circumcision.  But  this  circumcision  is  said  to 
H   2 


90  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

be  made  without  hands,  but  baptism  is  made  with  the  hands: 
This  circumcision  consisted  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the 
sins  of  the  flesh,  but  not  in  washing  away  the  tilth  of  the 
flesh  by  water  baptism.  It  is  said  to  be  made  by  Christ, 
but  baptism  is  performed  by  man.  Hence  we  conclude, 
that  the  circumcision  mentioned  in  the  last  part  of  this 
Terse  is  wholly  spiritual,  and  therefore  not  synonymous 
with  baptism. 

If  baptism  was  to  occupy  the  place  of  circumcision, 
why  have  we  not  somewhere  an  account  of  this  substitu- 
tion ?  Circumstances  often  existed,  which  seemed  impe- 
riously to  demand  an  explicit  avowal  of  this  change  of 
seals.  Why  was  not  this  substitution  recognized  by  the 
first  council,  who  convened  for  the  express  purpose  of 
settling  the  question,  whether  those  very  individuals, 
who  had  been  baptized,  ought  not  also  to  be  circumcised  ? 
If  these  early  christians  had  understood  this  substitu- 
tion, why  then  did  such  a  question  ever  arise  ?  and  why 
did  not  these  Apostles  put  down  this  question  by  this 
broad  declaration  ? — "  These  brethren  at  Antioch  have  all 
been  baptized,  and  received  the  milder  seal,  which  you 
all  know  Christ  appointed  in  lieu  of  circumcision,  why 
then  clamour  any  longer  about  that  bloody  and  vacated 
rite."  Read  the  summary  of  the  result  of  this  council,  in 
Acts  xxi.  25.  "  As  touching  the  Gentiles,  which  believe, 
we  have  written  and  concluded  that  they  observe  no 
such  thing ;"  i.  e.  no  such  thing  as  circumcision.  What, 
HO  such  thing  ?  When  if  they  were  Pedobaptists,  they 
believed  that  baptism  was  the  same  in  nature,  same  in 
design,  same  in  import,  the  same  seal  of  the  same  cove- 
nant, the  same  door  into  the  same  church,  and  to  be  ap- 
plied to  the  same  subjects  ?  Yet,  strange  to  say,  these 
Tery  churches  are  directed  to  observe  no  such  thing  as 
circumcision. 

The  Jews  were  informed  that  Paul  denied  circum- 
eision  to  children.  Why  did  he  not  exonerate  himself,  by 
saying,  true,  I  iXb  not  apply  the  bloody  rite,  but  you  know 
that  l  sprinkle  them  as  a  substitute.  When  he  entered 
Jerusalem,  they  said  to  him,  '•''  Thou  seesl,  brother,  how 
many  thousands  of  the  Jews  there  are  which  believe,  and 
they  are  all  zealous  of  the  law  :  and  they  are  informed 
«f  thee,  that  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  that  are  among 
the  Gentiles,  to  forsake  Moses,  saying,  that  they  ought  not 


fh  circumcise  their  children  ;  neither  to  walk  after  the 
eustoms."     Acts  xxi.  20,  21. 

On  these  words,  Dr.  Baldwin  justly  remarks,  in  his 
Letters  to  Dr.  Worcester,  ^'*  Two  things  are  plain  from 
the  above  passage.  1.  That  the  Jewish  believers  still 
continued  to  circumcise  their  male  children,  and  there- 
fore not  at  all  likely  that  they  baptized  them  in  the  room 
of  circumcision.  Had  they  not  been  still  in  the  practice 
of  circumcision,  they  certainly  would  not  have  blamed 
the  apostle  for  neglecting  it.  2.  Notwithstanding  their 
zeal  for  the  continuance  of  circumcision  among  such  Jews 
as  embraced  Christianity,  and  had  been  baptized,  they 
totally  disapproved  of  its  being  urged  upon  the  Gentile 
churches. 

Had  the  Apostle,  Sir,  understood  the  subject  precisely 
in  the  same  light  as  you  do,  it  would  have  been  the  easi- 
est thing  in  the  world  for  him  to  have  satisfied  his  breth- 
ren entirely,  unless  they  were  as  obstinate  as  the  Bap- 
tists. Could  he,  consistently  with  truth,  have  availed 
himself  of  the  second  part  of  your  conclusion,  it  would 
have  done  the  work  at  once.  What  could  they  have 
said,  had  he  boldly  insisted,  with  you,  that  ''  the  infant 
»eed  of  the  church  are  now  as  proper  subjects  for  the 
sea/of  the  covenant,  in  the  form  of  baptism,  as  anciently 
they  were  for  the  same  seal  in  the  form  of  circumcision?" 
They  must  have  either  denied  his  statement,  or  been  en- 
tirely silenced  by  it. 

And  is  It  not  unaccountable,  that  this  happy  thought 
should  have  wholly  escaped  the  Apostle  ?  Yes,  Sir,  per- 
fectly unaccountable,  that  neither  at  Antioch^  nor  before 
the  council^  nor  at  this  time  when  the  subject  was  again 
revived,  a  solution  so  perfectly  natural  and  easy,  as  that 
proposed  by  you,  should  not  in  the  4vhole  course  of  the 
debate  have  occurred  to  his  recollection  ?  1  am  persuad- 
*ed,  Sir,  had  you  been  on  the  spot  with  your  present 
views,  they  would  have  felt  the  force  of  your  eloqueirtse, 
if  you  had  not  convinced  them."  Baldwin^s  Letters,  pp. 
136,   137. 

Another  passage  which  has  been  much  employed  in 
this  debate,  is  found  in  Rom.  ix.  16.  24.  ^^  For  if  the  first 
fruit  be  holy,  the  lump  is  also  holy  ;  and  if  the  root  be 
holy,  so  are  the  branches." 

On  these  words  we  will  propose  some  questions:  1, 
Whai  13  meant  by  tiist  fruits  ?  Probably,  the  Apostles,  and 


92  LETTERS    ON    BAPiiSM. 

first  converts  to  Christianity.  2.  What  kind  of  holiness 
did  this  first  fruit  possess  ?  Internal  and  spiritual ;  but  not 
ceremonial.  3.  What  is  naeant  by  the  lump?  The  whole 
mass,  or  nation,  of  the  broken  otf,  or  rejected  Jews.  4. 
What  did  the  Apostle  mean,  when  he  said,  the  lump  also? 
The  reader  wiil  observe,  that  the  words  is  and  holy^  are 
not  in  the  original,  but  are  supplied  by  the  translators. 
Various  versions,  and  the  best  critics,  teach  us,  that  the 
supplied  verb  i>,  should  be  in  the  future  tense,  shall  be  ; 
the  lump  shall  be  also  holy.  The  Apostle  certainly  did  not 
mean  to  say,  that  this  lump  of  rejected  Jews  was  then 
possessed  of  internal  holine§s ;  nor  did  he,  as  we  believe, 
mean  to  say,  that  they  wer^  then  ceremonially  holy ; 
because  they  were  then  under  the  anathema,  or  curse 
of  God.  The  g-athering  of  the  first  fruit,  or  first  Jewish 
converts,  Paul  viewed  as  a  divine  intimation,  that  the 
whole  lump  of  broken  off  Jews  would  be  made  intrinsi- 
eally  holy  al  their  restoration,  or  millennial  harvest.  Of 
this  opinion  was  the  pious  Mr.  Baxter  ;  says  he,  "•  If  God 
hath  accf^pted  those  Jews  which  are  believers,  who  are 
to  the  whole  nation  but  as  the  first  fruits  to  the  lump,  he 
will  accordingly  accept  the  nation,  when  they  come  to 
Chi  ist,  as  we  have  done  ,  and  as  he  accepted  Abraham 
and  their  believing  ancestors,  he  will  also  accept  them. 
And  if  those  Apostles  be  honoured  of  God  as  holy,  who 
from  them  are  sent  with  the  gospel  into  the  world,  so 
shall  the  broken  branches  be  when  they  are  restored.'* 
See  his  Paraphrase  on  the  New  Testament. 

You  see,  my  brethren,  that  Paul  is  here  reasoning  about 
a  few  pious  Jews,  called  first  fruits,  and  the  whole  com- 
muniiy  of  rejected  Israelites.  ^What  can  you  see  in  all 
thii^,  which  has  any  relation  to  infant  baptisn»  ?  If  the 
early  conversion  of  these  few  individuals,  was  an  earnest 
that  the  whole  excommunicated  body  were  in  due  time 
to  be  made  holy,  will  it  hence  follow,  that  each  believing 
Gentile  parent  becomes  a  first  fruit,  or  root,  in  relation  to 
his  natural  seed,  and  that  they  are  a  holy  lump,  or  holy 
branches.^  This  would  be  saying  more  of  the  children  of 
professors,  than  was  €aid  of  the  rejected  Jews.  Of  them 
it  was  predicted,  that  they  should  be  holy  at  their  restora- 
tion. If  the  conversion  of  a  few  Jews  to  the  christian 
faKh,  be  viewed  by  Paul  as  a  merciful  intimation  that  God 
wiil  convert  the  whole  scattered  tribes,  are  we  from  this 
to  infer  that  each  believing  parent  becomes  a  holy  root, 


BETTERS    ON    BAPTISE.  ^ 

ii  spiritual  father,  and  all  his  household  the  holy  lump,  ot 
holy  branches  in  the  church  ?  Such  an  inference  is  not 
contained  in  the  premises,  and  is  unnatural  and  incon- 
clusive. It  is  certainly  foreign  from  the  subject  which; 
Paul  was  discussing. 

It  is  said,  that  as  the  Gentile  converts  were  insertea 
into  the  good  olive  tree,  hence  it  must  follow,  that  the 
privileges  in  relation  to  households,  which  belonged 
to  the  rejected  branches,  must  also  belong  to  those  who 
were  newly  ingrafted.  This  mode  of  reasoning  goes  on 
the  ground  that  the  olive  tree  symbolizes  the  church  as 
formed  by  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  This,  however, 
is  not  granted.*  But  for  a  moment  let  it  be  granted  ihat 
the  olive  tree  is  a  type  of  the  church  as  it  existed  frona 
Abraham  to  Christ,  and  the  above  argument  will  ruin  it- 
self by  proving  too  much.  Says  Mr.  innes  on  this  text, 
*'  We  must  not  only  bring  in  all  the  children  of  converted 
Gentiles,  but  all  their  slaves  ;  and  we  must  not  only  admit 
the  children  to  baptism,  but,  on  the  same  principle,  admit 
them  to  the  Lord's  table.  Few,  however,  would  think  of 
carrying  the  argument  this  length,  though  there  appears 
not  a  doubt,  that  this  passage  furnishes  as  fair  an  argu- 
ment for  these  practices,  as  it  does  for  infant  baptism. 
Again  is  it  alleged,  that  if  you  abridge  the  privileges  of 
Christians  by  depriving  their  oflspring  of  the  seal  of  the 
covenant,  you  will  thus  throw  a  stumbling  block  in  the 
way  of  the  Tews  ?  I  reply,  will  you  not  throw  a  similar 
stiunb'liig  block  in  their  way,  by  not  admitting  these 
cbiidrea  to  the  Lord's  supper,  seeing  the  event  it  com- 
memorate is  so  directly  compared  to  the  passover  of 
old,  of  which  all  the  members  of  the  Jewish  family  were 

•  Says  Dr.  Austin,  *'  The  reinsertion  of  these  broken  off 
branches  into  the  good  olive  tree,  (alluding'  to  the  restoration  of 
the  Jews,)  can  mean  no  less  than  their  occupying  the  place,  which 
they  held,  before  they  were  broken  off.  Occupying  this  place, 
they  necessarilv  partake  of  the  fatness  of  the  olive  tree.  This  is 
the  blessing,  the  entire  blessing  secured  in  the  promise.  But  the 
land  of  Canaan  is  expressly  a  part  of  this  blessing.  Their  being 
brought  back  then  under  the  covenant,  mu^t  necessarily  restore 
them  to  the  enjoyment  of  this  land"  Viev)  of  the  Economy  of  the 
Church  of  God.  chap   xlv.  p.  305. 

If  this  reasoning  be  correct,  it  follows  that  Gentile  believers  can- 
not be  considered  as  ingrafted  into  the  olive  tree,  because  they  do 
not  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  is  expressly  a  part  of  the  bless- 
ing, secured  in  the  promise,  and  represented  by  the  fatness  of  the 
olive.    Hudson's  Sermon  on  Chr.  Bap.  p.  29,  3d  Edit. 


94  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISJVf. 

allowed  to  participate  ?  The  whole  argument  proceeds 
on  the  fallacious  supposition,  that  the  Apostle  cannot  con- 
trast the  character  and  conduct  of  adult  Jews,  who  are 
moral  agents,  with  that  of  Gentiles  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion, without  mciuding  the  infants  of  both,  who  are  not 
moral  agents.  But,  1  conceive,  on  this  passage  we  may 
even  go  a  little  farther,  and  say,  not  only  is  there  no  al- 
kision  to  children  here,  but  the  reasoning  is  such,  that 
children  cannot  be  included.  The  apostle  is  only  speak- 
ing of  those  who  are  capable  of  believing,  or  being  guilty 
of  unbelief  Hence,  if  we  attend  to  his  orgument,  so  far 
is  it  from  countenancing  infant  baptism,  that  it  may,  per- 
haps, fairly  be  viewed  as  leading  to  the  very  opposite  con- 
clusion. Thus,  the  branches  broken  off,  represented 
those  Jews  separated  on  account  of  the  personal  guilt  of 
unbelief;  the  branches  grafted  in,  denoted  those  Gentiles 
who  believed,  as  they  stood  by  faith.  Would  it  not  be  a 
plain  inference  from  this  figurative  language,  that  they 
only  of  the  Gentiles  became  partakers  of  the  root  who 
were  capable  of  faith?  in  other  words,  those  who  profess- 
ed faith  were  alone  considered  as  the  spiritual  seed  ot 
Abraham."  [Conversations,  pp.  173,  179 

1  am,  brethren,  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XVII. 

SOME    OBJECTIONS   TO   THE    PRACTICAL   TENDENCY    OP   PEDOBAf- 
TISM    STATED. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

We  beg  leave  to  submit  for  your  consideration,  some 
remark.s  which  we  have  to  make  ou  the  natural  tendency 
of  the  theory  we  oppose. 

And  1st.  We  object  to  Pedobaptism,  because  it  mili- 
tates against  the  grand  object  of  the  new  dispensation, 
namely,  to  advance  the  gospel  church  to  a  higher  state 
of  purity,  than  what  obtained  in  the  Jewish  church. 

There  are  several  passages,  which  teach  us  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  under  the  present  economy,  is  to  be  ele- 
vated in  purity  and  spirituality  much  above  the  ancient 
congregation  of  Israel. 


LETTERS    ON     BAPTISM.  95 

Matt.  iii.  10.  "  And  now  also  ihe  axe  is  laid  unto  the 
root  of  the  trees  :  therefore  every  tree  which  bringeth  not 
forth  good  fruit,  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  lire.*' 
Verse  12,  '•  Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  will  thof' 
oughly  purge  his  floor,  and  gather  his  wheat  into  the  gar- 
ner." Eph,  ii.  15.  "To  make  in  himself  of  twain^  one 
new  man ^  so  making  peace."  Verse  21.  "  In  whom  all 
the  hwM'iwg  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  unto  an  holy 
temple  in  the  Lord."  Chap.  iv.  16.  "From  whom  the 
whole  body  fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that 
which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual 
working  in  the  measure  oi  every  part,  maketh  increase  of 
the  body,  unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love."  Chap.  v. 
26,  27.  "  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself 
for  it,  that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  wash- 
ing of  water  by  the  word  :  That  he  might  present  it  to 
himself,  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle^  or 
any  &uch  thing  ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy  and  without 
blemish.''''  1  Pet.  ii  5.  "  Ye  also,  as  lively  stones,  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house^  an  holy  priesthood,  to  oflfer  up 
spiritual  sacrifices.,    acceptable  to  God   by  Jesus  Christ." 

Now,  my  brethren,  let  us  grant  for  a  moment  that  the 
whole  world  are  all  Pedobaptists,  then  after  this,  the 
church  will,  in  all  instances,  be  built,  not  of  living  and 
spiritual  stones,  but  of  infants,  who  are  incapable  of  man- 
ifesting moral  life.  Whatever  change  may  pass  on  these 
infants  after  baptism,  it  must  be  granted,  that  for  aught 
we  know,  they  were  dead  materials  and  inwardly  unholy 
at  the  tiiiie  they  were  incorporated  into  the  holy  temple 
of66d.  On  this  plan  the  builders  of  Zion  frame  nothing 
into  her  walls  but  lifeless  stojies.  Tell  me,  will  you,  my 
brethren,  how  this  continued  addition  of  moral  death  can 
preserve  and  augment  her  moral  life  ?  How  can  the 
continued  accession  of  such  a  mass  of  spiritual  impurity 
augment  her  sanctity  ?  A  missionary  under  God  converte 
an  Hindoo  Rajah,  he  proceeds  to  baptize  all  his  chil- 
dren, all  his  Pagan  wives  and  servants,  and  builds  them 
all  upon  Christ,  the  foundation  of  Zion.  This  must 
be  the  consistent  practice  of  all  those,  who  take  the 
law  of  circumcision  for  their  guide,  to  determine 
the  subjects  of  baptism.  Now  would  not  this  mission- 
ary find  the  work  of  self-defence  somewhat  difficult,  if 
the  great  Apostle  Paul  should  return,  and  say  to  him, 
Have  you,  as  a  wise  builder  on  this  foundation,  takea 
heed  how  you  hare  buUded  ?    Have  you  been  careful  to 


S6  JL^tTieRS   ON    BAPTIS]^. 

select  only  the  gold  and  the  silver  ?  Or  have  you  not 
knowingly  built  thereon,  principally  with  Aay,  tsoooA  and 
stubble  ?  Does  the  enlargement  of  the  church,  with 
such  unholy  materials,  tend  directly  to  preserve  and  ad- 
vance her  internal  purity  ?  Or  will  not  the  introduction 
of  such  an  assemblage  of  pollution  so  defile  the  temple  of 
God,  that  it  will  need  cleansing,  yet  so  as  by  fire  ? 

2.  We  object  to  Pedobaptism,  because  it  infringes  that 
personal  freedom  of  choice,  which  the  gospel  vouchsafes 
to  each  individual. 

Says  Paul,  "who  art  thou,  that  judgest  another  man's 
servant  ?  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth." 
Rom.  xiv.  4.  "  With  the  heart  man  believeth  unto  right- 
eousness, and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
salvation."  Rom.  x.  10.  Religion  is  a  personal  concern, 
and  lies  between  God  and  the  soul.  It  must  spring  from 
the  free  exercises  of  the  heart,  as  excited  by  the  spirit  of 
the  Lord.  Under  the  hand  of  restraint  or  compulsion  it 
dies  away,  and  its  ceremonies,  without  the  heart,  become 
like  the  sounding  brass  or  the  tinkling  cymbal. 

Let  us  proceed,  my  brethren,  to  inquire  whether  the 
system  of  Pedobaptism  will  not  detract  from  the  rights  of 
conscience. 

To-day  a  believing  parent  gets  all  his  children  sprink- 
led and  incorporated  into  the  church.  As  they  advance 
in  years  and  knowledge,  he  continues  to  instruct  them, 
and  to  call  on  them  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  their 
baptism,  and  to  embrace  the  creed,  and  to  submit  to  the 
practice  of  the  church.  But  it  so  happens  that  these 
children,  while  reading  for  themselves,  are  led  to  believe 
^hat  sprinkling  is  not  the  mode,  nor  infants  the  subjects  of 
that  baptism,  which  Christ  appointed.  The  parent  con- 
tinues his  fruitless  labors.  He  calls  in  the  aid  of  the 
church,  but  nothing  avails.  These  children  refuse  compli- 
ance. But  still  they  give  good  evidence  that  they  arc 
conscientious.  This  church  has  then  within  her  walls 
several  individuals,  who  refuse  to  adopt  that  belief  and  to 
obey  those  laws,  which  give  her  visibility.  What  roust 
be  done  ?  Will  not  a  strict  and  consistent  adherence  to 
the  law  of  circumcision  require  their  expulsion  ?  Should 
they  carry  their  system  out,  and  anathematize  these  indi- 
viduals, would  they  not  tax  the  rights  of  conscience  by 
the  infliction  of  a  punishment,  more  tremendous  than  auy 
Other  within  the  power  of  the  church  ? 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  Vt 

Take  another  case.  Suppose  that  a  parent  has  half  a 
dozen  children  all  under  age,  and  all  belong  to  his  house. 
They  are  all  the  subjects  of  grace,  and  some  of  them  in 
opinion  are  Baptists,  and  the  rest  Quakers.  Soon  after 
this  their  parents  both  are  converted,  and  join  a  Pedo- 
baptist  church.  They  are  required  to  bring  all  their 
children  for  baptism  and  admission.  How  shall  this  case 
be  managed  ?  The  children  are  all  minors,  all  under  the 
control  of  their  parents,  and  ail  residing  in  the  house  ; 
but  they  have  all  chosen  a  different  religion.  Now,  says 
a  Pedobaptist,  to  guide  us  in  this  difficult  sase,  we  must 
take  the  law  of  circumcision.  It  has  never  been  repeal- 
ed, and  that  required  the  believing  parent  to  apply  this 
rite  to  all  in  his  house,  capable  of  its  reception  ;  hence, 
says  he,  all  that  we  find  within  the  walls  of  the  family, 
we  must  comprise  in  the  baptismal  law.  What  would 
have  become  of  those  children,  who  grew  up  in  the  wil- 
derness, had  they  refused  to  be  circumcised  by  Joshua, 
because  they  professed  to  differ  from  their  fathers  in  their 
religious  opinions?  The  law  speaks  with  a  plainness, 
that  no  one  can  misapprehend.  "  The  uncircumcised 
man  child — shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people,  he  hath 
broken  my  covenant."  To  dedicate  offspring  in  baptism, 
is  the  sacred  duty  of  parents  which  they  owe  to  the 
church,  and  to  their  God.  In  this  ceremony  children,  while 
minors,  are  to  be  considered  as  passive  as  the  infant  of 
eight  days  old.  The  scruples  therefore  of  these  chil- 
dren, continues  he,  are  without  foundation.  Baptism  is  a 
duty  not  on  their  part,  but  on  the  part  of  their  parents. 
For  it  they  are  not  responsible.  They  ought  to  acqui- 
esce,  and  give  their  parents  the  privilege  of  performing 
that  duty,  which  they  owe  their  Maker. 

If  this  speech  should  take  effc^ct,  then  an  attempt 
would  be  made  to  compel  these  children  to  embrace  opin 
ions,  and  to  engage  to  submit  to  practices  which  they  sin- 
cerely believe  to  be  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  It  is 
useless  to  say  these  consequences  never  have  occurred? 
The  question  is  not  what  is  usually  done  in  such  a  case, 
but  what  are  the  legitimate  consequences  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist theory  ? 

That  Paul  did  not  take  the  law  of  circumcision  for  his 
guide  in  applying  the  rite  of  baptism,  is  evident  from  the 
fact,  that  he  required  a  christian  believer  to  dispense 
with  baptism,  in  relation  to  his  unbelieving  wife.     The 


98  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

law  of  circumcision  demanded  the  application  of  that  rite 
to  €very  member  of  the  household  capable  of  receiving 
it,  on  the  pain  of  excision  from  the  people  of  God.  Now 
if  this  law  be  our  guide  in  settling  the  subjects  of  bap- 
tism, then  it  must  irresistibly  follow,  that  it  must  be  ap- 
plied to  all  the  members  of  a  believer's  family,  who  are 
capable  of  receiving  that  ordinance.  All  must  grant  that 
an  unbelieving  wife  is  as  capable  of  receiving  it,  as  a  male 
child.  But  the  Apostle  directed  a  believer  at  Corinthto 
retain  in  his  family  his  unbaptized  companion,  when  if 
•the  law  of  circumcision  had  been  his  guide  in  this  case, 
he  would  have  required  her  expulsion.  See  1  Cor.  vii. 
14.  The  directions  which  he  here  gave  furnish  irrefrag- 
able proof,  that  he  did  not  reason  from  the  vacated  law  of 
circumcision,  to  determine  who  were  to  be  baptized,  and 
in  what  manner  to  treat  the  unbaptized. 

Take  another  case.  A  believing  father  brings  his  son, 
of  20  years  of  age,  to  baptism^  and  incorporates  him  into 
the  church.  But  his  life  is  bad.  His  father  and  the 
church  immediately  begin  to  labour  with  him  to  persuade 
him  to  repent,  to  own  his  baptism,  and  come  to  the  table 
of  the  Lord.  But  all  in  vain  ;  he  remains  refractory,  and 
is  cut  off.  After  you  have  excluded  him,  he  turns  and 
9a}  s  to  you  :  Show  me  the  two  opposite  texts  of  scrip- 
ture, which  authorized  you  to  take  into  your  church  an 
individual,  without  requiring  faith  and  repentance  ;  and 
then  immediately  to  excommunicate  the  same  individual, 
for  the  -want  oi  faith  and  repentance  ?  Why  did  you  say, 
that  I,  an  unbeliever,  ought  to  be  brought  into  your 
church,  and  then  say  to  me,  no  unbeliever  has  any  right 
to  remain,  and  therefore  I  must  be  turned  out  again  ? 

I  am,  brethren,  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XVIIL 

ARGUMENT   FROM   ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORV. 

Beloved  Brethren, 

As  1  have  closed  the  examination  of  this  subject  in  the  light 
of  divine  truth,  you  perhaps  now  expect  me  to  enter  the 
boundless  and  maizy  field  of  Ecclesiastical  History.  But  yon 
may  be  assured  that  in  this  way  I  shall  not  severely  tax  your 


LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM.  99 

patience.  Respecting  myself,  I  can  say  that  I  have  gone 
over  this  field,  and  in  it  taken  a  pretty  wide  range. 
From  this  source  it  would  be  easy  to  collect  favourable 
arguments  enough,  to  swell  this  little  pamphlet  into  a 
ponderous  volume.  This,  however,  is  unnecessary  and 
inexpedient.  1  shall  only  very  briefly  touch  on  a  few 
points,  and  then  relieve  your  patience. 

Before  we  proceed,  we  will  just  repeat  an  observation 
on  the  inspired  records. 

In  all  the  writings  of  the  New-Testament,  we  find 
neither  precept  nor  example  for  infant  baptism.  These 
writings  cover  a  period  of  nearly  one  hundred  years. 
During  this  time,  instances  of  infant  baptism,  if  it  then 
prevailed,  must  have  been  quite  innumerable  ;  yet  all 
are  passed  over  in  the  most  mysterious  silence. 

It  may  be  objected  here,  that  if  the  want  of  precept 
and  example  will  exclude  infants  from  baptism,  then  for 
the  same   want,  consistency  requires  us  to   shut  females 
from  the  table.     This  old  objection  rests  on  the  false  sup- 
position, that  sexei  must  be  specified  in  order  to  enforce 
a  duty,    or  to  give    title   to   church    privileges.     This 
ground  is  not  tenable  ;  if  it  were,  would  not  females  be 
excused  from  the  duty  of  faith,  love  to  God,  and  self-ex- 
amination ?       For     where    is     the    command     in    the 
New   Testament,    which   enjoins   these    duties   on    fe- 
males ?    The  fact  is,  the  gospel  describes  character  which 
entitles  to  ordinances,  and  by  this  we  are  to  be  guided. 
If  the  specified  character  of  a  penitent  and  believer  be 
found,  then  the  administrator  must  admit  the  person  to 
allotted  privileges,  without  stopping  to  inquire  whether  it 
is  found  in  man  or  woman,  because  in  relation  to  the  ben- 
efits of  the  gospel,  the  distinction  of  sexes  is  expressly 
abolished.     "There  is  neither  male  nor  female,  for  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus."  Gal.  iii.  28.     We  do  not  ob- 
ject to  infant  baptism  merely  because  infants  are  not  men- 
tioned in  the  commission,  but  because  in  them  we  cannot 
find  that  character,  which  we  are  to  require  in  all  the 
candidates  for  this  ordinance. 

Though  the  apostolical  Fathers  of  the  first  century 
frequently  mention  the  baptism  of  believers^  yet,  like  the 
inspired  penmen,  they  are  all  silent  on  infant  baptism. 

No  mention  is  made  of  infant  baptism  in  the  second 
century,  unless  it  be  just  at  its  close. 


100  LETTERS   ON    BAPTISM. 

In  the  third  century  we  grant  that  there  is  clear  eVi* 
dence  of  infant  baptism,  and  infant  communion.  In  ec- 
clesiastical history,  these  two  practices  may  be  traced  to 
the  same  origin,  and  they  are  here  supported  by  the  same 
arguments.  In  proof  of  this  we  will  cite  some  author- 
ities. 

(Jljiillingworth  says,  "  Saint  Augustine  I  am  sure  held 
the  communicating  of  infants,  as  much  apostolic  tradition, 
as  the  baptizing  of  them. — The  eucharist's  necessity  for 
infants — was  taught  by  the  consent  of  the  eminent  fath- 
ers of  some  ages  without  any  opposition  from  any  of  their 
contemporaries,  and  was  delivered  by  them,  not  as  doc- 
tors, but  as  witnesses ;  not  as  their  opinion,  but  as  apos- 
tolic tradition."  Judson,  p.  39. 

Says  St.  Austin,  "  No  one  who  professes  himself  a 
christian  of  the  catholic  faith,  denies  or  doubts,  that  chil- 
dren, without  receiving  the  grace  of  regeneration  in 
Christ,  and  without  eating  his  flesh,  and  drinking  his 
blood,  [i.  e.  without  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper]  have 
not  life  in  them,  and  therefore  are  liable  to  ever- 
lasting punishment.  Would  Austin,  do  we  think,  ever 
talk  after  this  rate,  unless  he  knew  it  to  have  been"  the 
practice  of  the  eastern,  as  well  as  the  western  churches, 
to  give  the  eucharist  to  children  ?  and  very  remarkable 
is  another  passage  of  St.  Austin  to  our  purpose  ;  which  Dr. 
Wall  has  taken  notice  of,  and  thus  translated.  The 
christians  of  Africa  do  well  call  baptism  itself  one's  sal- 
vation ;  and  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  body,  one's  life. 
From  whence  is  this,  but,  as  I  suppose,  from  that  ancient 
and  apostolical  tradition,  by  which  the  churches  of  Christ 
do  naturally  hold,  that  without  baptism,  and  partaking  of 
the  Lord's  table,  none  can  come  either  to  the  kingdom  of 
God,  or  to  salvation,  and*  eternal  life?  For  the  scripture, 
as  1  shewed  belore,  says  the  same.  For  what  other  thing 
»lo  they  hold,  that  call  baptism  salvation,  than  that  which 
is  said  ;  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  ;  and 
that  which  Peter  says,  The  like  ligure  whereunto  even 
baptism  doth  now  save  us  ?  And  what  other  thing  do  they 
iioid,  that  call  the  sacrament  of  the  LorJ's  table  /i/e,  than 
that  which  is  said,  I  am  the  bread  of  life,  &c.  And  the 
t)read  which  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  which  1  will  give  for 
ihe  life  of  the  world.  And  except  you  eat  the  flesh,  and 
drink  the  blood  of  the  Son  of  Man,  you  have  no  life  in 
vou?  If  then,  as  so  many  divine   testimonies   do  agree, 


LETTERS   ON    BAPTISI^.  101 

neither  salvation,  nor  eternal  life  is  to  be  hoped  for  with- 
out baptism,  and  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord,  'tis 
in  vain  promised  to  infants  without  them."  See  Dr.  Aus- 
tin's View,  pp.  244,  245.  This  is,  without  doubt,  clear 
evidence  that  St.  Austin  was  satisfied  that  infant  commu- 
nion was  as  necessary  and  as  much  apostolic  as  infant  bap- 
tism. 

In  this  quotation  St.  Austin  tells  us  he  supposed  that 
the  churches  naturally  held  that  infant  baptism  and  infant 
communion  were  both  traditions  from  the  Apostles ;  and 
he  also  informs  us,  why  they  viewed  them  as  traditions, 
viz.  theirbelief  that  certain  texts  of  scripture  make  both 
baptism  and  communion  absolutely  essential  to  all  for  eter- 
nal life.  All  agree  that  the  false  construction  of  the  pas- 
sage in  the  6th  chap,  of  John,  53d  verse,  "  except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you,"  was  the  erroneous  ground,  on  which 
they  placed  the  necessity  of  infant  communion.  On  a 
similar  perversion  of  certain  texts,  which  speak  of  bap- 
tism, they  grounded  the  necessity  of  imposing  this  rite  on 
infants.  History  traces  both  of  these  ceremonies  to  one 
common  origin,  namely,  necessity;  and  supports  both 
by  the  same  process  of  argument.  It  seems  then  impos- 
sible to  invalidate  the  historic  arguments  for  infant  com- 
munion without  ruining  to  the  same  extent  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  Nor  can  you,  my  brethren, 
it  is  believed,  argue  against  infant  communion,  even 
from  scripture^  without  confuting  all  your  favourite  argu- 
ments in-eupport  of  infiint  baptism.  Do  you  say  that  in- 
fants ought  not  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper,  because 
they  cannot  manifest  any  evidence  of  repentance,  faith 
and  ability  to  discern  the  Lord's  body,  the  prerequisites 
for  this  ordinance  ;  are  they  not  equally  incapable  of 
manifesting  faith  and  repentance,  which  are  just  as  much 
demanded  for  baptism  as  they  are  for  communion?  Do 
the  scriptures  teach  us-  to  administer  the  eucharist  to 
none  but  the  visibly  penitent,  and  at  the  same  time  direct 
us  to  baptize  some  penitents^  and  some  who  are  manifestly 
impenitent  ?  Nor  can  infant  baptism  be  supported  without 
furnishing  arguments  for  their  right  to  communion. 
Will  you  say  that  the  law  of  circumcision,  covenant  re- 
lation, m<imbership  in  the  church,  the  benediction  of 
Christ,  the  heliness  of  children,  the  law  of  kindness,  and 
their  superior  privileges  under  the  gospel,  all  go  to  prove 
1  3 


102  LETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

that  all  minors  an<l  servants  of  believers  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized, and  yet  deny  that  these  same  arguments  afford 
any  proof  that  any  one  of  them  ought  to  commune?  The 
Jewish  church  admitted  all  her  members  to  communion  ; 
but  Pedobaptist  churches  admit  only  about  half  her  mem- 
bers to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  How  then  can  they,  on 
their  mode  of  reasoning,  say  that  the  gospel  church  has  en- 
larged the  privileges  of  her  children  above  Avhat  they  en- 
joyed under  the  former  dispensation  ?  And  how  can  they 
consistently  talk  of  open  communion,  while  they  refuse 
to  communicate  with  perhaps  more  than  half  their  own 
regular  members? 

Let  it  be  proved  how  their  exclusion  from  the  table  of 
the  Lord  will  not  in  any  measure  sink  the  gospel  church 
below  the  Jewish  church,  and  this  argument  will  be  just 
as  good  to  prove  that  their  exclusion  from  baptism  will 
not  diminish  their  religious  privileges. 

If  any  one  question  the  truth  that  little  children  were 
admitted  to  the  passover,  I  would  refer  him  to  Exodus 
xii.  3,  4.  ''-  They  shall  take  to  them  every  man  a  lamb 
according  to  the  house  of  their  fathers,  a  lamb  for  a  house. 
And  if  the  household  be  too  little  for  the  lamb,  let  him 
and  his  neighbour  next  unto  his  house  take  it  according 
to  the  number  of  the  souls  ;  every  man  according  to  his 
eating,  shall  make  your  count  for  the  lamb." 

Why  was  each  parent  here  directed  to  enumerate  his 
household  to  determine  how  much  or  how  little  he  must 
prepare  for  the  passover,  if  none  of  them  were  to  eat 
with  him?  If  the  number  of  souls  in  one  house  was  too 
small  to  eat  one  lamb,  they  must  join  the  next  family,  and 
so  increase  the  number  of  communicants  at  one  table  till 
they  could  consume  the  paschal  feast. 

Further,  no  member  of  the  household  was  allowed  to 
eat  any  unleavened  bread  for  7  days.  Now  is  it  not 
highly  improbable  that  their  children,  and  little  ones, 
during  all  this  long  space,  were  prohibited  the  use  of 
bread  ? 

I  know  some  of  late  have  said,  that  infants  ought  not 
to  be  brought  to  the  table,  because  they  are  physically 
unable  to  participate.  But  do  the  men,  who  make  this 
excuse,  mean  to  tell  us,  that'as  soon  as  this  inability  is  gone, 
they  are  then  to  be  brought  to  the  Lord's  Supper?  Cer- 
tainly not :  tlieir  practice  informs  us,  that  they  exclude 
little  children  from  the  eucharist,  not  for  natural  inability, 


LETTERS    ON     BAPTIS^vr.  103 

but  for  the  want  of  f^^th  aqcj  repentance.     This  excuse, 
therefore,  is  altogether  de*oeptive  and  nugatory. 

But,  to  return  to  Church  History.  We  observe,  that 
though  infant  baptism  is  found  in  the  third  century,  yet 
then,  and  for  some  time  after,  it  was  far  from  being  uni- 
versal. In  proof  of  this,  we  submit  the  following  author- 
ities : 

The  first  shall  be  Archbishop  Basil,  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury. Says  he,  in  one  of  his  Lent  Sermons  to  the  candi- 
dates for  baptism,  '*  What  time  for  baptism,  so  proper  as 
Easter?  For  this  the  church  lifts  up  her  voice,  and  calls 
from  far  her  sons,  that  those  whom  she  once  brought 
forth,  she  may  now  bring  forth  again  ;  and  feed  with  sub- 
stantial food,  them  whom  she  hath  hitherto  fed  with  the 
milk  of  the  first  elements  of  religion.  To  j^ou  the  apos- 
tle says.  Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you — Why 
do  you  delay?  Why  do  you  deliberate?  Wliat  do  you 
wait  for?  Instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  from  your 
infancy,  are  you  not  yet  acquainted  with  it?  Will  you 
continue  your  trials  to  old  age  ?  Last  year  you  deferred 
it  till  this;  do  you  now  intend  to  put  off  your  baptism  till 
the  next?" 

The  second  shall  be  taken  from  the  Lent  services  of 
the  Church  at  Rome.  Says  the  Priest,  "  Dearly  beloved 
brethren,  you  know  the  day  of  scnttifiy  is  at  hand,  in  which 
our  elect  may  be  divinely  instructed,"  i.  e.  the  candidates 
for  baptism.  When  the  candidates  were  brought  out  for 
this  rite,  the  deacon  said  to  them,  "  Ye  elect  males, 
kneel  down  aud  pray."  He  pauses,  and  then  says  to 
them,  "  Rise,  finish  your  prayers  together,  and  say  amen." 
They  all  obey.  He  then  said  the  same  to  the  elect  fe 
males.*'  See  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism,  pp.  77,  78, 
&  86. 

That  these  were  the  children  of  professors,  and  not  of 
pagans,  cannot  be  doubted.  They  are  said  to  be  those, 
whom  the  church  once  hrovght  forth,  and  fed  with  food, 
and  had  instructed  from  their  infancy.  And  that  these 
children  were  to  be  baptized  on  the  ground  of  their  own 
profession  and  desire,  is  evident  from  the  whole  Lent  ser- 
vice. They  were  scrutinized,  or  examined,  from  time 
to  time,  during  seven  days.  They  were  directed  to  pray, 
to  observe  their  orders,  and  to  profess  their  faith  in  the 
creed  of  the  c'hurch.  But  how  could  all  this  happen,  if 
professors  then  baptized  ail  their  ipfants  ? 


104  iETTERS    ON    BAPTISM. 

In  the  year  381,  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
gave  his  opinion  on  the  pf^^riety  of  baptizing  chil- 
dren, and  the  absolute  need  of  baptizing  even  babes, 
in  case  of  danger  of  death.  His  words  are ;  "  But  say 
some,  what  is  your  opinion  of  infants,  who  are  not  capa- 
ble of  judging  of  the  damage  sustained  by  the  want  of  it? 
Shall  we  baptize  them  ?  By  all  means,  if  there  he  any  ap' 
parent  danger.  For  it  were  better  they  were  sanctified 
without  their  knowing  it,  than  that  they  should  die  with- 
out being  sealed."     See  Robinson,  p.  230. 

Gregory,  the  metropolitan  of  all  Greece,  the  oracle  of 
the  catholic  world,  gave  it  as  his  opinion^  that  infants 
should  be  baptized,  ijf  the  prospect  of  their  death  made 
it  necessary.  When  there  was  no  such  necessity,  he 
maintained  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  till  they  were 
old  enough  to  hear  and  understand  for  themselves.  All 
this  is  clear  proof  that  infant  baptism  was  then  a  new  af- 
fair, and  not  settled  by  law,  human  or  divine.  If  it  had 
been,  Gregory  would  have  supported  it  by  arguments 
much  better  than  his  private  opinion.  If  he  knew  that 
the  church  had  all  along  baptized  infants,  on  the  law  of 
circumcision  and  covenant  right,  why  then  did  he  not 
plead  this  ground,  and  not  give  his  private  opinion  ? 
Christians  were  eaHy  settled  on  the  island  of  Great  Brit- 
ain. Here  they  flourished  till  the  year  448,  when  they 
were  invaded  by  the  Saxons,  and  driven  into  Wales. 
There  they  remained  in  quietude,  till  596,  when  Aus- 
tin visited  the  island.  But  he  found  that  these  ancient 
christians  were  Baptists.  With  these  christians,  Aus- 
tin wished  to  form  a  union,  and  to  bring  them  within  the 
pale  of  the  Catholic  Church.  For  this  object,  he  propos- 
ed to  them  several  articles  of  agreement.  One  was, 
"  That  they  should  give  Christendom  (or  baptism)  to 
their  children."  But  they  refused  to  depart  from  the 
primitive  practice  of  believer's  baptism.* 

I  am,  kc, 
♦  See  Ivimey,  v.  1,  p.  42. 


•s/^  h(t^i.U- 


CONCLUSION, 


Thus,  my  Brethren,  I  have  submitted  for  j^our 
candid  perusal,  the  various  arguments,  which  mov- 
ed me  to  take  those  important  steps,  of  which  you 
are  fully  apprized.  As  soon  as^  these  arguments 
had  settled  my  mind,  you  certainly  could  expect 
nothing  less  of  me,  than  an  honest  and  frank  avow- 
al of  my  belief.  If  I  am  deluded,  I  need  your  ten- 
derest  commiseration.  But  if  I  am  right,  the  errors 
of  the  opposite  scheme  are  by  no  means  trivial. 
They  effect  the  whole  fabric  of  the  church  of  God. 
By  my  change,  I  had  nothing  of  this  world  to  gain, 
but  much,  very  much  to  lose..  The  sacrifice  was 
great  indeed,  and  before  my  selfish  heart  could  be 
willing,  the  surrender  cost  me  much  deep  anguish 
of  soul.  But  long  experience  has  taught  me  to  say 
with  Sir  Walter  Kaleigh,  "  That  a  good  conscience 
is  the  best  estate ;"  or  with  the  Psalmist,  "  In  keep- 
ing them,  (commands  of  God,)  there,  is  great  re- 
ward." 

To  my  former  connexions  in  religion,  I  am  un- 
der many  obligations  of  gratitude,  and  for  them  I 
hope  to  carry  down  to  my  grave  an  affectionate  re- 
membrance. I  trust  you  w  ill  bear  jiie  w  itness,  my 
brethren,  that  I  have  not  "  dipped  my  pen  in  gall." 
1  have  honestly,  and  with  freedom,  spoken  what 
was  deemed  the  truth,  but  w  ith  love.  I  can  assure 
you  that  my  trials  have  been  much  aggravated  by 
the  fear  of  diverting-,  in  a  small  circle,  the  public 
mind  from  the  great  and  good  things  of  the  present 
day.  I  must,  however,  indulge  the  hope  that  my 
labours  will  ultimately  subserve  the  interests  of 
truth. 


106  CONCLUSION. 

Our  time  for  action,  my  brethren, is  short  and  fleet- 
ing. Years  roll  round  and  steal  away,  and  will  soon 
bring  us  to  the  impassable  boundary  of  death.  Till 
then  let  us  be  diligent  in  business,  fervent  in  spirit, 
serving  the  Lord.  Let  it  be  our  daily  and  united 
prayer,  that  God  would  continue  to  accomplish  his 
designs  of  mercy,  and  hasten  the  introduction  of 
that  day  of  seven  fold  light,  when  the  watchmen 
shall  see  eye  to  eye,  and  there  be  nothing  to  hurt, 
or  destroy,  throughout  God's  holy  mountain. 

I  am,  dear  Brethren,  your's  in  sentiments  of 
Christian  affection. 

STEPHEN  CHAPIN. 


AN 

APPENDIX, 

CONTAINING 

STRICTURES 

ON 

Rev»    Mr.    Moore's    Reply. 


LETTERS 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE  REV.  MR.  MOORE,  IN 
ANSWER  TO  HIS  REPLY  TO  THE  FOREGO- 
ING    LETTERS. 

LETTER  I. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

The  relation  which  once  existed  between  us  was  en- 
dearing and  important.  For  a  series  of  years  we  laboured 
in  the  same  part  of  the  gospel  vineyard,  and  in  the  same  de- 
nomination, as  the  professed  ministers  of  Christ,  To  dis- 
solve a  union  so  deeply  interesting  to  ourselves,  and  to 
the  cause  of  Zion,  demanded  clear  and  substantial  argu- 
ments. Such  arguments,  I  firmly  believe,  were  discovered 
after  long,  painful  and  prayerful  examination  of  the  ground 
on  which  1  formerly  stood.  These  reasons,  which  pro- 
duced such  a  revolution  in  my  opinion  and  corresponding 
change  of  practice,  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  declare  to  the 
world.  This  I  did  in  a  Series  of  Letters,  addressed  to  the 
christian  public.  To  these  Letters  you  have  been  pleas- 
ed to  issue  a  reply.  You  have  avowed  with  much  frank- 
ness, th'e  reasons  why  they  received  your  animadver- 
sions. In  your  belief,  there  was  an  imperious  calfto  fur- 
nish your  readers  with  an  early  antidote  to  the  poison  of 
error.  If  you  viewed  yourself  attacked,  you  had  a  right 
to  stand  on  the  defensive,  and  to  employ  such  means,  as 
you  deemed  most  proper  to  repel  aggression.  The  con- 
troversy now  pending  between  us  excites,  to  a  considera- 
ble extent,  the  attention  of  the  surrounding  churches. 
Better  judges  than  ourselves  will  convass  and  decide  on 
the  weapons  and  the  spirit,  which  we  may  employ  and 
discover.  Itbecomes  us,  therefore,  to  look  well  to  our  feel- 
ings and  to  the  manner  in  which  we  manage  this  debate.  I 
regret  that  I  cannot  pronounce  my  unqualified  approbation 
on  the  spirit  of  your  publication.  It  is  spiced,  as  some  would 
say,  pretty  generously  with  wit  and  laconism.  It  exhib- 
K 


^  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORe's   REPLV 

its  such  strong  marks  of  family  likeness  to  your  othel* 
productions,  that  it  is  at  once  recognized  as  your  own  le- 
gitimate offspring.  For  a  dry  and  sarcastic  style  you 
have  long  borne  away  the  palm.  Nor  do  I  regret  that  I 
possess  little  talent  to  rob  you  of  this  glory. 

I  have  confined  myself  to  the  most  prominent  things 
in  your  pamphlet.  Many  things  of  minor  consequence 
have  been  passed  in  silence. 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  II. 

Rev  and  Dear  Sir, 

In  your  advertisement,  you  are  pleased  to  assign  three 
ireasons  why  you  laboured  to  invalidate  my  arguments 
against  the  sprinkling  of  infants,  rather  than  to  prove  the 
correctness  of  the  practice.  They  are,  First.^ "  It  appear- 
ed most  pertinent.  Second^  Because  an  answer  was  de- 
sired diS  soon  as  possible.  Third.  Because  the  author  cal- 
culates to  write  a  treatise  on  the  subject." 

Certainly  you  had  a  right  to  select  your  own  mode  of 
?eply.  You  are  sensible,  however,  that  it  is  much  more 
difficult  to  frame  and  complete  a  building,  than  it  is  to  at- 
tempt its  demolition.  What  your  promised  work  will 
contain,  time  will  disclose.  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  very 
hazardous  to  predict,  that  your  present  Reply  furnishes 
us  with  all  the  principal  materials  of  your  intended  build- 
ing. Your  intimation  may  subserve  your  interest  by 
amusing  the  publick  mind,  and  by  retarding  the  decision 
«f  some,  until  they  learn  what  farther  aid  they  can  obtain 
from  your  promised  publication. 

You  also  inform  us,  that  "  care  has  been  taken  not  to 
misrepresent  the  meaning  of  the  author  of  the  letters." 

Whether  care  were  the  constant  companion  of  your 
pen,  I  am  willing  to  refer  to  the  better  judgment  of  thosei 
who  shall  peruse  both  your  writings  and  mine. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  in. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

You  remark  in  your  introduction  that,  "  'There  can  be 
no  doubt  then,  that  Christ  has  given  specific  rules  for  the 


TO   THE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  It 

formation  and  regulation  of  his  church,  and  it  is  equally 
evident  that  his  rules  should  be  observed  and  applied. 
He,  who  is  light  and  truth,  has  communicated  the  divine 
will  in  a  luminous  manner."  Please,  sir,  to  compare  these 
words  with  what  you  have  said  at  the  close  of  your  fourth 
letter-  There  you  assert  that  Christ  is  just  as  unintelli- 
gible, respecting  the  mode  of  admission  into  his  kingdom, 
as  he  would  have  been,  had  he  studied  to  be  obscure.  Yea, 
in  another  place  you  have  told  us,  "  If  Christ  was  in- 
definite on  the  mode  of  baptism, /te  chose  to  be  so.''^  If  a. 
number  of  believers  were  about  to  be  embodied  for  re- 
ligious privileges,  J  suppose  you  would  saj^,  that  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism  upon  them  would  be  necessary 
to  form  them  into  a  regular  church.  The  ceremony  of 
baptism  then  is  one  of  the  specific  rules  for  the  formation 
of  a  church.  But,  sir,  will  you  specify  what  this  specific 
rule  means  ?  You  contend  that  Christ  did  not  require  any 
particular  mode  ;  but  he  required  baptism.  I  ask  you  to 
tell  us  what  baptism  is.  You  are  not  invited  to  define 
the  mode,  but  baptism  itself  If  the  manner  of  using 
water  be  only  a  circumstance  attending  baptism,  it  is 
not  baptism,  because  mere  circumstances  are  ever  con- 
sidered distinct  from  the  thing  about  which  they  stand. 
You  have  said  that  baptism  is  a  positive  institution,  and 
that  Christ  was  explicit  in  all  its  parts.  It  seems,  then, 
that  sprinkling,  pouring,  bathing  and  immersion,  are  no 
part  of  baptism,  because  you  say,  that  he  was,  upon  all 
these  ways,  perfectly  inexplicit.  If  then  all  these  ways, 
and  every  other  imaginable  way  of  applying  water,  form 
no  part  of  baptism,  we  leave  it  to  you,  sir,  to  define  this 
ordinance,  and  to  find  parts,  or  materials,  to  give  it  being. 
You  cannot  with  any  consistency  say  that  Christ  required 
any  of  these  ways  of  application,  because  you  have  main- 
tained, that  he  meant  to  hide  the  mode  of  baptism  in 
perfect  darkness.  The  specification,  therefore,  of  any 
mode,  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  his  chosen  con- 
cealment. 

Ifyou  will  say  that  baptism  is  an  unknown  application 
of  water  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  we  ask  you  to  pro- 
duce authority.  Did  the  Apostles  believe,  that  Christ, 
when  he  said  to  them,  "  Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature, — baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,"  &c. 
meant  to  say,  Go  apply  water  to  your  subjects  just  as  you 
and  they  shall  please  ?  How  will  you  reconcile  this  vague 
sepse  of  the  word  with  your  declaration,  that  '^  baptisn*^ 


4  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORE^S   REPLY 

is  a  positive  institute  ;  that  the  ordinance  is  explicit  in  all 
its  parts  ;'^''  that  Christ  hath  in  a  luminous  manner  deliv- 
ered specific  rules  to  regulate  the  admission  of  members 
into  his  kingdom  ?  But  yet  according  to  your  language  ia 
other  places  this  specific  rule  specifies  an  unknown  somethings 
this  luminous  law  is  still  involved  in  impenetrable  darkness. 
It  seems  that  your  various  modes  and  circumstances  of  bap- 
tism are  left  in  the  predicament  of  the  fabled  tortoise,  on 
whose  back  the  Indians  have  placed  the  earth,  but  forgot 
to  furnish  the  poor  animal  with  any  pedestal  to  enable 
Jier  to  sustain  her  ponderous  load. 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  IV. 

In  your  second  letter  you  admit  the  correctness  of  my 
general  principles  respecting  positive  institutions.  The 
only  fallacy  of  which  you  complain  is  this  :  Mr.  C.  "  takes 
it  for  granted,  that  positive  institutions  are  positive  in  all 
their  parts,  and  in  all  that  pertains  to  them,  and  that  no  cir- 
cumstance, form,  or  manner,  is  left  discretionary."  I  did 
suppose,  and  do  still,  that  every  part  of  a  positive  institu- 
tion is  positive.  But  there  are  many  circumstances,  attend- 
ing such  an  institution,  which  form,  as  you  say,  no  part  of 
the  positive  law.  The  quantity  of  water,  provided  it  be 
sufficient  for  the  specified  purpose,  the  place  where,  the 
time,  when,  and  the  position  of  the  subject  of  baptism,  and 
many  other  things,  are  left  discretionary. 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  V. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sh-, 

In  your  third  letter  you  inform  us  that  "  From  the 
lime  they,  (the  Baptists)  practised  trine  immersion,  till 
they  appeared  in  Munster,  there  is  no  want  of  variety  of 
opinion"  amongst  them. 

When  did  the  Baptists  begin  to  exist,  as  a  denomination  ? 
You  have  told  us  in  the  75th  page  of  your  Reply  on  the 
authority  of  Wall,  that  for  the  first  eleven  hundred  years 
only  two  individuals  can  be  found  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  church  J  who    leaned  towards  our  particular  views. 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  ^ 

You  doubt  whether  these  two  were  thorough  Baptists^ 
All  the  rest  of  the  christian  world  were,  in  your  belief,^ 
Pedobaptists.  According  to  your  calculation  the  Baptists? 
had  no  existence  till  after  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth 
century.  You  have  informed  us  that  the  Baptists  have 
used  and  have  advocated  the  use  of  baptisteries,  and  trine 
immersion.  Will  you,  sir,  undertake  "  the  small  task," 
and  prove,  that  in  or  after  the  1 2th  century,  the  Baptists 
built  and  advocated  the  use  of  baptisteries  ?  This  you 
must  do  to  support  your  quotation  from  Wall.  But  I 
believe  you  will  find  some  difficulty  to  prove  that  bap-^ 
tisteries  were  built,  so  late  as  the  12th  century,  either  by 
Catholicks  or  Dissenters.  After  infant  baptism  was 
established  by  law,  these  large  buildings  were  not  much 
needed.  They  theretbre  gradually  decayed  and  disap- 
peared, and  little  fonts  for  babes  within  the  walls  of 
churches  occupied  their  place. 

Or  will  you  contradict  Wall,  and  grant  that  there  wera 
Baptists  before  the  12th  century  ?  Let  any  one  read  your 
29th  page,  and  he  would  naturally  suppose,  that  you  meant 
to  concede  they  existed  long  before  that  period.  You 
there  say,  that,  baptisteries  began  to  be  built  about  tha 
middle  of  the  third  century  ; — and  that  those  who  built 
and  used  them,  were  exceedingly  corrupt  in  doctrine  and 
in  practice.  You  then  in  tlse  next  paragraph  ask  the 
Baptists,  who  use  and  advocate  the  use  of  baptisteries, 
why  they  have  departed  from  the  ancient  simple  manner 
of  baptism  ?  Will  any  of  your  readers  suppose,  that  you 
meant  this  question  should  relate  to  Baptists,  who  existed 
in,  or  after  the  12th  century?  I  believe,  sir,  you  will 
find  on  a  revision  of  your  Reply,  that  your  own  language 
and  your  quotation  from  W^ail  are  quite  contradictory. 
But  perhaps  when  you  have  leisure,  and  do  not  write 
under  an  imperious  call,  you  will  be  able  to  exonerate 
yourself  from  this  contradiction. 

1  am,  &c. 


LETTER  VI. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

I  had  said  that  if  Christ  had  intended  to  conceal  th^ 
mode  of  applying  water,  he  might  have  chosen  for  thi^ 
[purpose  kathairo^  or  agnizci.^  both  of  whick  are^  as  j^ 


6  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORE's   REPLV 

grant,  indefinite,  as  to  the  way  of  application.  To  these 
words  you  object,  because  they  contain  a  specific  mean- 
ing, viz.  that  of  cleansing  the  filth  of  the  flesh.  This 
specific  sense  you  say  is  "  inconsistent  with  the  nature 
and  design  of  the  ordinance  ;"  might  you  not  just  as  well 
object  to  the  word  sprinkle  ?  This  word  in  scripture  most 
certainly  conveys  the  idea  of  cleansing.  Consult  all  the 
purifications  of  the  law,  and  you  will  find  that  sprinkling 
was  one  important  way  of  cleansing  the  filthiness  of  the 
flesh.  Besides,  will  not  your  objection  to  these  words 
lie  equally  strong  against  emhapto^  which  you  think  would 
have  answered  better,  than  haptizo^  if  he  had  intended 
immersion  ?  Emhapto  means  to  dip  in^  to  steep^  to  dye^  to 
colour.  See  Schre.  and  Ains.  This  word  then  means  to 
immerse  for  a  specific  purpose,  viz.  to  dye,  to  stain,  or  to 
colour.  Have  you  not,  then,  by  your  objection  to  kathairo^ 
on  account  of  its  specific  character,  forever  ruined  your 
favourite  word,  emhapto  ?  This  means  to  dip,  but  most 
generally  for  the  purpose  of  coloring,  or  that  the  thing 
dipped  may  be  in  some  way  affected  by  the  liquid  into 
which  it  is  immersed.  So  it  is  used  in  John  xiii.  26, 
'^^  Jesus  answered,  he  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give  a  sop, 
when  I  have  dipped  it,  and  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop." 
So  in  Mark  xiv.  20,  "  One  of  the  twelve  that  dippeth  with 
me  in  the  dish."  This  sop  was  a  small  piece  of  bread, 
dipped  in  some  broth  or  liquid  to  render  it  the  more 
palatable.  May  we  not  say  in  your  own  language,  "  If 
the  design  of  baptism  were''  to  imbue,  or  to  leave  a  stain 
on  the  flesh,  "  the  word  emhapto^  which  you  have  chosen 
to  express"  immersion,  is  well  selected  ?  But  as  this  is 
not  the  design  of  the  ordinance,  your  proposed  word, 
though  definite  as  to  the  manner  of  applying  water, 
contains  a  specific  meaning,  viz.  djang  or  coloring, 
»'  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  nature  and  design  of  the 
ordinance." 

You  have  made  much  use  of  my  quotation,  from  Dr. 
Heed.  When  I  cited  the  Dr's  words,  I  meant  to  reason 
''•  argumentum  ad  hominem."  As  you  did  not  take  me 
thus,  I  regret  that  I  did  not  apprize  my  reader  of  my  de- 
sign. I  meant  to  say,  that  admitting  this  word  has  as  many 
meanings,  as  the  Dr.  has  given  it,  it  would  fairly  follow 
that  Christ  required  immersion,  if  his  words  were  ex- 
plained according  to  the  common  rules  of  interpreting 
statute  laws.  Its  first  and  most  obvious  and  common 
sense  wQuid  be  taken  in  settling"  the  meaning  of  the  com" 


TO  THB  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  7 

mission,  and  not  its  most  obscure  and  rare  signification. 
The  dispute  between  us  is  not,  as  you  saj,  whether  this 
word  in  all  its  uses  msans  nothing  but  immersion  ;  but 
whether  Christ  has  not  given  us  sufficient  proof  in  his 
word,  that  he  requires  immersion,  as  the  only  appointed 
ordinance.  When  he  compared  his  sufferings  to  a  bap- 
tism, he  showed  that  the  word  means  an  overwhelming. 
Because  between  a  light  sprinkling  and  his  heavy  suffer- 
ings there  were  no  points  of  resemblance.  And  wlien  the 
Apostle  tells  believers,  that  they  are  buried  in  baptism, 
he  gives  irrefragable  proof,  that  primitive  christians  were 
immersed.  If  they  were  not,  such  a  phrase,  in  relation 
to  this  rite,  would  never  have  been  used,  either  in  a  figu- 
rative, or  literal  sense.  Dr.  Reed  seems  to  have  been  fully 
apprized,  i^t  the  sense  of  words  varies  with  the  progress 
of  time.  He  says,  "  the  original  sense  of  A'ords  is,  by  cus- 
tom, very  frequently  altered  by  being  enlarged,  or  restrict- 
ed. To  bathe,  in  the  primitive  sense  of  the  word,  seems  to 
imply  immersion,  and  yet  it  is  now  commonly  used  to  signi- 
fy any  kind  of  wetting.  The  word  Baptist,  primarily  sig- 
nified a  baptizer,"  (or  dipper,)  "  but  it  now  is  commonly 
used  to  signify  any  person,  who  denies  infant  baptism, 
and  holds  to  immersion.""  It  seems,  then,  according  to 
the  doctor,  the  word  baptisth^s  in  modern  times  departed 
very  materially  from  its  ancient  signification.  So  we  say 
the  word  baptizo  has  senses  now  atfixed  to  it,  which  it  did 
did  not  primarily  contain.  Hence  the  unsafe  ty  of  settling 
the  ancient  meaning  of  this  word  by  its  modern  construc- 
tion. Let  any  one  read  the  history  of  this  word,  and  he 
will  find,  that  it  has  been  made  a  leaden  rule,  bending 
and  turning  to  suit  all  the  varieties  of  opinion  on  the 
mode    of   baptism.  Some     have   told    us,    that  the 

flexible  character  of  this  word,  is  a  grateful  quality, 
because  it  leaves  to  each  individual  the  liberty  of  making 
his  own  election,  and  because  it  accommodates  the  word 
to  ail  the  diversities  of  custom  and  climate.  But  this 
word  possesses  a  firmer  texture,  than  to  be  changed  by 
the  ever  various  and  forever  varying  opinions  of  men. 

We  admit  -that  baptizo  implies  cleansing,  dying  and 
washing.  If  you  dip  a  thing  in  water,  it  is  o^  course  wash- 
ed and  cleansed  more  or  less.  If  you  dip  cloth  in  dye, 
it,  of  consequence,  is  colored  more  or  less.  I  am  aware 
that  you  have  said  that  '•''  baptism  is  a  generic  term." 
Now  this  is  so  far  from  being  correct,  that  directly  the 
reverse  is  true.  Baptism  or  immersion  is  not  a  genus  or 
generic  ternij  but  a  species,    You  weU  ki^ow  that  the 


6f  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORe's    REPLY 

"  species  includes  the  genus  and  all  that  is  in  it,  but  th^ 
genus  does  not  include  the  species."  Washing  "is  a 
generic  term,  but  dipping,  pouring  and  bathing  ar6 
species,  or  kinds  of  washing.  It  is  hoped  the  reader  will 
bear  with  me.  if  I  briefly  show  what  is  meant  by  genus 
and  species.  Genus  is  a  comprehensive  word  or  name^ 
given  to  a  number  of  classes  of  beings,  possessing  some 
pr(  minent  trait,  common  to  them  all.  Thus  the  proper- 
ty of  ^\alking  on  four  feet  is  common  to  a  great  variety  of 
animals.  Hence  we  apply  to  all  such  animals,  the  name 
quadruped,  which  means  a  four  footed  beast.  Quadruped 
then  is  the  genus,  and  horse,  lion,  dog,  elephant,  are  so  many 
species  of  four  footed  animals.  So  washing  is  the  genus^ 
but  dipping  is  a  species  of  washing.  Hence  when  you? 
say  that  baptizo  means  to  wash,  to  dye,  to  cleanse,  &c.  you 
do  nothing  towards  proving  that  this  word  means  any 
thing  less  than  dipping,  because  all  these  may  be  only  the- 
cjonseqiiences  of  immersion. 

I  am,  &e. 


LETTER  VII. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

You  have  now  come  to  attempt  more  directly  the  in- 
validation of  my  arguments,  in  favour  of  immersion.  The 
arguments  which  v\^ere  employed  in  favour  of  this  prac- 
tice, were  the  following:  1st.  The  obvious  meaning  of 
the  word,  employed  to  express  this  ordinance.  2nd, 
Many  scri]3ture  passages,  taken  both  from  the  practice  of 
John  and  of  the  Apostles,  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 
3d,  The  places  chosen  for  the  administration  of  this  rite. 
4th,  The  language  employed  in  its  description.  5th,^ 
The  practice  of  the  Greek  church.  6th,  The  authority 
of  the  translators,  who  have  rendered  the  word  baptizo- 
in  various  languages,  into  a  word  which  means  to  dip, 
7th,  Confessions  of  failh  in  large  bodies  of  christians. 
8th,  The  concessions  of  many  Pedobaptists.  9th,  The- 
authority  of  church  history.  10th,  The  design  of  chris- 
tian baptism. 

The  manner  in  which  these  several  arguments  were 
illustrated  and  sustained,  the  reader  may  see  by  turning' 
back  to  my  Series  of  Letters,  and  reading  under  the  sev- 
eral heads,  where  these  topicks  are  discussed.  Tfeese 
places  he  is  desired  to  peruse* 


Tk3   the   foregoing   LETTERS.  ^ 

1  have  already  attended  to  your  remarks  on  my  defini- 
tion of  the  word  baptizo.  I  will  therefore  consider  your 
objections  to  my  reasonings  from  numerous  texts  of  scrip- 
ture. I  quoted  many  passages,  which  relate  to  John's 
baptism.  All  arguments,  drawn  from  this  source,  you  at- 
tempt to  nullify.  But  what  are  your  objections  to  tak- 
ing John's  baptism  for  our  guide  in  administering  this  or- 
dinance ?  They  are,  1st,  It  was  instituted  under  the  law. 
2nd,  It  was  essentially  different  from  that  instituted  by 
Christ.  3d,  It  was  designed  for  a  different  purpose,  viz.  to 
prepare  the  minds  of  the  Jews  for  the  approaching  dispen- 
sation. 4th,  Some  of  John's  disciples  were,  as  you  say,  re- 
baptized.  See  pp.  22,  23.  Seeing  these  two  rites  are  thus 
distinct,  and  under  two  distinct  dispensations,  j'^ou  tell  us 
that"  of  course  we  cannot  argue  from  one  to  the  other." 
This,  to  be  sure,  is  doing  the  business  offhand.  But,  sir, 
were  you  apprized,  that  the  blow  which  you  aimed  at 
others,  fall  exclusively  on  your  own  head.  For  all  these 
objections  lie  with  all  their  force  against  proselyte  bap- 
tism, which  you  maintain  the  apostles  took  for  their  guide. 
This,  too,  if  it  existed  in  the  days  of  Christ,  was,  1st,  In- 
stituted under  the  law,  and  that  too  by  the  authority  of 
Jewish  Rabbins,  and  not  by  Jehovah.  2nd,  It  was  essen- 
tially different  in  its  nature  from  christian  baptism,  od, 
It  was  designed  for  a  different  purpose,  viz.  to  denote  the 
washing  of  all  profane  and  heathenish  practices.  4th5 
Many,  who  received  it  were  rebaptized  by  the  apostles. 
Mr.  Scott  says,  the  Eunuch  '•'  was  a  Proselyte  to  the 
whole  Jewish  religion."  Many  who  were  converted  on 
the  day  of  Tentecost,  were  Proselytes  to  the  same  relig- 
ion ;  but  yet  they  were  all  rebaptized,  if  they  had  been 
the  subjects  of  Proselyte  baptism.  Seeing  then  these 
two  rites,  Proselyte  and  Christian  Baptism,  existed  under 
two  distinct  dispensations,  and  were  essentially  different 
in  nature  and  design  ;  "  of  course  we- cannot  argue  from 
one  to  the  other."  Show  me,  will  you,  sir,  why  the 
above  objections  do  not  as  fully  ruin  proselyte  baptism 
for  our  example,  as  they  do  that  of  John's  ordinance? 
Will  not  your  above  objections  destroy  all  your  inferen- 
tial arguments  from  circumcision  ?  That  also  was  under 
the  law,  and  designed  for  a  different  purpose  from  chris- 
tian baptism.  Can  you  then  argue  from  one  to  the  oth- 
er? Further,  will  not  your  mode  of  reasoning  prove 
that  the  Lord's  supper  was  not  a  christian  ordinance,  but 
belonged  to  the  Levitical  ceremonies  ?  You  deny  a  cnris- 


iO  STRICTURES    ON   MR. 

tian  character  to  John's  baptism,  because  it  was  instituted 
under  the  law.  Now  the  Eucharist  was  as  truly  institut- 
ed before  the  legal  dispensation  closed,  as  was  the  bap- 
tism of  John.  The  gospel  dispensation  did  not  begin,  in 
your  opinion,  till  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  When 
the  supper  was  first  celebrated,  the  whole  ritual  law  was 
in  force.  Though  this  institution  was  first  observed  near 
the  close  of  the  ritual  law,  yet  this  affects  not  the  argu- 
ment. It  was  as  much  under  the  law,  as  though  it  had 
been  appointed  a  thousand  years  before  its  abrogation.  If 
a  ceremony  is  necessarily  legal,  because  observed  while 
that  dispensation  was  in  force,  why  did  not  Christ  sus- 
pend the  establishment,  till  after  his  resurrection  ?  Un- 
less 3-0U  relinquish  your  objection  io  John's  baptism,  as  a 
gospel  rite,  i  believe  you  will  find  it  an  herculean  task  to 
prove  that  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  christian  ordinance. 

Though  you  had  in  your  opinion  laid  John  to  rest  as  an 
exemplar,  yei  you  resolve  to  try  your  skill  in  explaining 
a  few  texts,  taken  from  his  administration.  This  you  do 
lest  any  one  should  doubt  the  genuineness  of  your  cour- 
age ''  in  shrinking  from  a  hard  task." 

You  then  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  texts,  which 
relate  to  the  baptisms  administered  after  the  resurrection 
of  Christ. 

You  first  quote,  and  then  expound. 

''And  he  came  into  all  the  country  about  Jordan 
preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of 
sins."  People  from  all  quarters  of  Judea  flocked  to  him 
to  hear  his  preaching.  They  were  convinced  by  his  in- 
structions ;  and  they  were  persuaded  to  receive  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance.  Novv,  considering  the  place  where 
they  were,  near  Jordan  ;  considering  the  vast  numbers 
to  be  baptized  ;  considering  the  improbabilit}'-  that  John, 
or  the  multitude  had  vessels  with  them  for  the  purpose 
of  carrying  water;  and  considering  that  they  could  have 
here  a  more  commodious  and  refreshing  situation  than 
any  where  else  ;  where  would  he  and  they  most  prob- 
ably resort  for  baptism  ?  without  any  regard  to  the  mode, 
where  would  they  be  so  likely  to  repair,  for  this  ordi- 
nance as  to  Jordan." 

But  why  did  they  baptize  in  Jordan  ?  why  did  they  go 
down  to,  and  then  come  up  out  of  the  water?  The  rea- 
sons why  all  this  took  place,  you  have  assigned.  They 
are  the  following.  1.  The  water  was  lower  than  the 
banks  of  the  river,  and  2d.  the  improbability  that  either 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  11 

John  or  any  of  the  multitude,  had  vessels  with  them  for 
the  purpose  of  carrying  water.      Now  the  number  to  be 
baptized,    the    length    of    time     employed   by  John   in 
preaching  and  administering  the  ordinance  in  that  place, 
the  inconvenience   of  going  down   and  climbing  up  the 
banks  of  Jordan  every  time  they  sprinkled,  render  it  in^ 
credible,  that  neither  John,  nor  any  of   the  multitude 
were  not  provident  enough  to  take  with  them  some  ves- 
sel, or,  if  they  were  thus  improvident  when  they  assem- 
bled, that  they  should  not  have  sent  for  one,  rather  than 
endure  for  months  so  much  inconvenience.      Besides  if, 
as  you  insinuate,   this  vast  multitude  chose  to  repair  to 
Jordan  to  have  a  "  commodious  and  refreshing  situation," 
would  not  this  forethought  of  theirs  in  selecting  a  spot  to 
allay  their  thirst,    naturally  have   led  them  to  think  of 
some  "  vessel  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  water?"    Or 
did  this  multitude,  when  they  concluded  to  repair  to  this 
refreshing  stream,   without  having   any  regard  to    the 
mode  of  baptism,  imagine  that  they  must  lie  down  and 
take  their  drink  in  the  manner  of  Gideon's  army  ?  Enon, 
another  place   where  John  baptized,   you  suppose   was 
chosen,    not  for    immersion,    but  because    it  was   wefi 
watered  to  accommodate  thirsty  men  and  animals.      You 
maintain,  that  the  phrase,   "  much  water  there,"   means 
that  in  Enon  there  were  many  separate  streams.     In  con- 
firmation of  this,  you  suppose  that  '•'' polla  udata^*'*  here 
rendered  much  ivater^  me?{n '■'"many  waters.''^      You  also 
suppose,  that  if  John    did  immerse    his  subjects,  there 
.would    have  been   a  '''•gross  impropriety  in   using  these 
'words  to  convey  the  idea  of  this  mode,"  because  you  say 
that  "  a  little  bath,  a  little  rivulet,   checked  for  an  hour, 
is  abundantly  sufficient  for"  immersion.     But  you  imagine 
that  the  multitudes,  who  assembled  around  John,  would 
so  obviously  require  many  brooks  and  rivers  to  cool  their 
burning  thirst,   that  there  was  a  '*  manifest  propriety  in 
John's  selecting  Enon,  a  place  well   watered  for  their 
accommodation."    You  maintain  that  when  a  large  body 
of  men  and  animals  are  about  to  assemble,  the  consump- 
tion of  water  will  be  so  great  for  their  refreshment,  that 
it  is  manifestly  proper  to  select  a  spot,  for  their  rendez- 
vous, well  watered  with  many  brooks  and  rivers  ;  but  at 
the  same   time  you  contend,  that  it  would  be  grossly  im- 
proper to  choose  a  stream  oi  much  water  for  the  purpose 
of  baptizing  by  immersion  !    I  am  perfectly  willing  td 


H  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE's    REPLY 

risque  the  strength  and  soundness  of  such  reasoning  to  TCidM& 
converts  to  your  favourite  views. 

The  Bible  teaches  that  the  much  water  of  Enon  was 
chosen  for  the  convenience  of  baptizing^  but  you  believe 
that  these  many  waters  were  selected  for  the  purpose  of 
drinking. 

You  also  suppose  that  when  "  polla  udata'*''  are  used 
to  express  quantity  of  water,  they  signify  very  much^  and 
that,  when  thus  used,  they  should  be  rendered  much 
water.  You  and  our  translators  are  not  agreed  upon  this 
point,  as  you  may  see  by  reading  the  following  texts. 
"  The  Lord  is  upon  many  zcaters.''''  Psalm  xxix.  3.  "  The 
Lord  on  high  is  mightier  than  the  noise  of  many 
waters,  yea,  than  the  mighty  waves  of  the  sea."  "  His 
noise  was  like  the  noise  of  many  waters.""  Ezek.  43.  2. 
Cant.  viii.  7.  '•''Many  'waters  cannot  quench  love."  Rev.  i.  15. 
His  voice,  as  the  sound  oi  many  waters."  See  the  Sep- 
tuagint  and  the  Testament  on  these  texts. 

Will  you  say  that  the  translation  in  all  these  instances 
■is  not  correct  ?  Or  that  the  polla  udata  in  these  texts 
does  not  express  quantity,  but  many  divided  streams? 
If  so,  then  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  which  roars  like  the 
mighty  waves  of  the  sea,  at  the  same  time  sounds  like 
the  gentle  murmurings  of  little  brooks  and  rivers. 

In  the  28th  page  you  quote  these  words  :  ''  And  Jesus, 
when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the 
water,"  and  then  observes,  "  if  Mr.  C.  will  apply  here  his 
rule  of  understanding  words,  according  to  their  natural 
and  primary  meaning,  and  not  be  guided  by  the  eighth 
or  tenth  meaning,  he  will  understand  the  word  apo.,  to 
signify /rom,  not  out  of.'''^  Such  a  rule,  sir,  I  never  adopted 
in  defining  the  Greek  prepositions  c^,  m,  apo.,  fin,  &c.  But 
in  defining  them  I  assumed  this  rule,  viz  "  The  general 
construction  of  the  period,  in  which  they  are  used,  must 
determine  their  signification." 

This  rule  led  me  to  render  apo.,  out  o/",  rather  than, 
fro7n  the  water.  It  was  employed  to  describe  the  motion 
of  Christ,  immediately  after  he  had  been  baptized  in  the 
river  Jordan. 

Take,  sir,  if  you  please,  the  rule  by  which  you  think 
I  ought  to  have  been  guided,  and  define  these  preposi- 
tions, not  according  to  their  construction,  but  according 
to  their  first  signification,  in  the  following  passages. 
Luke  8.  29,  &c,  and  Mark  5.  13.  "  For  he  had  commanded 
the  unclean  spirit  to  come  {apd)frojn  the  man, — and  "he" 
was  driven  of  the  devils  {eis)  at  the  wilderness— many 


TO    THE    FOREGOING   LETTERS.  13 

devils  were  entered  (eis)  at  him.  And  they  besought 
him  that  he  would  not  command  them  to  go  out  [eis)  at 
the  deep.  And  there  was  there  a  herd  of  many  swine, 
feeding  (en)  at  the  mount,  and  they  besought  him  that  he 
would  suffer  them  to  enter,  {eis)  at  them.  Then  went 
the  devils  (apo)  from  the  man,  and  entered  (^eis)  at  the 
swine,  and  the  herd  ran  violently  down  a  steep  place 
(ew)  at  the  sea,  and  were  choaked  (e?s)  at  the  sea." 
But,  sir,  how  were  they  suffocated  ?  as,  by  this  read- 
ing, there  is  no  evidence  that  one  of  the  two  thousand 
ever  went  i7ito  the  lake. 

"  The  place  where  Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch,"  you 
say,  "  affords  no  evidence  of  the  mode  of  his  baptism."  I 
never  supposed,  that  it  gave  positive  proof  of  the  man- 
ner of  his  baptism,  but  corroborating  evidence.  You 
grant  that  they  stopped  at  some  river  or  pond.  But  why 
so,  if  sprinkling  were  the  mode  ?  Why  go  down  to,  and 
come  up  from  the  water  ?  You  are  pleased  to  give  the 
following  reasons.  1st,  No  evidence  that  he  had  a  ser- 
vant with  him.  2nd,  No  vessel  by  which  water  could  be 
brought.  And,  3d,  the  water  was  lower  than  the  chariot. 
But,  sir,  is  it  not  rather  strange, 'that  a  man  of  his  charac- 
ter, having  the  control  of  all  the  treasures  of  Queen  Can- 
dice,  should  travel  in  a  chariot  without  a  servant  or  driver? 
When  he  spoke  and  commanded  his  carriage  to  stand  still, 
whom  did  he  address  but  his  postillion  ?  Beside,  must  he 
not  have  been  a  very  dexterous  charioteer  to  have  driven 
two  or  four  horses  himself,  and  yet  at  the  same  time 
have  been  deeply  engaged  in  reading  the  prophet  Isaiah  ? 
This  criticism,  sir,  I  believe  is  purely  original,  and  all  the 
praise  which  it  demands  is  certainly  yours.  You  ask, 
*'  does  going  into  the  water  imply  total  immersion?  Then 
Philip  was  immersed  as  well  as  the  Eunuch."  It  is 
strange  that  you  should  bring  forward  this  stale,  this 
childish  objection.  Who  reasons  at  this  loose  rate  ?  Did 
I  infer,  as  you  say,  that  he  was  put  wholly  under  >\'^ter, 
merely  because  he  went  into  it  ?  My  words  are,  '  It  is 
true  that  the  phrases,  into  and  out  of  the  water,  will  not 
of  themselves  prove  immersion.  But  they  are  strong 
corroborating  evidence.  It  is  not  simply  said  that  they 
went  into  the  water,  but  while  in  the  water  Philip  ir/i- 
mcrsed  the  Eunuch.' 

I  have  taken  considerable  pains  to  ascertain  the  mean- 
ing of  the  particle  ei>,  and  believe  that  those  who  are 
conversant  with  the  original  language  of  the  New  Tes- 

Li 


14  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE's   REPLY 

tament,  will  generally  admit  that  it  signifies  iiiio.  When 
used  in  a  local  sense,  it  seldom  means  any  thing  else. 
When  it  is  connected  with  udor^  Jordanus^  potamos^  or  pur, 
it  never  has,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  any  other  signification. 
See  Matt.  xvii.  15.  Mark  i.  9,  and  ix.  22.  Acts  viii.  38. 
Rev.  xvi.  4. 

You  suppose,  sir,  eis  andefc,  translated  into  and  out  of^  in 
other  places  mean  to  and/rom  ;  and  you  wish  to  know  by 
what  authority  I  gave  to  them  the  sense  of  into  and  out 
of  In  this  place.  As  you  will  not  allow  me  to  make  much 
use  of  the  authority  of  our  translators,  I  will  bring  my 
support  from  the  context  of  the  passage.  If  the  inspired 
penman  had  understood  the  preposition  eis  to  mean  the 
same  as  to,  why  did  he  not  use  it,  when  he  would  express 
*'  their  arrival  at  a  certain  water  ?"  But  now  he  says 
"when  they  came  epi  ti  udor,  that  is,  to  or  unto  a  certain 
water.  But  when  he  describes  them  as  alighting  from 
their  carriage,  and  using  the  water,  he  doth  not  use  the 
preposition  epi,  but  eis,  "  they  went  down  eis  both  into  the 
water.  They  came  epi,  to  the  water  before  baptism  is 
mentioned.  Why  is  not  this  motion  enough  ?  It  certain- 
ly is  upon  your  principle.  But  Luke  did  not  think  so  ;  he 
therefore  describes  another  motion,  {eis)  into  the  water, 
before  baptism  was  administered.  Here  we  have  the 
most  decisive  proof,  that  the  inspired  penman  meant  that 
the  preposition  eis  signified  something  more  than  to  the 
water,  because  he  had  gotten  them  to  the  water  Avhen  he 
used  the  other  preposition,  epi.  As  this  particle  is  evi- 
dently used  with  the  most  explicit  reference  to  baptism, 
and  being  obviously  employed  to  express  a  different  i(iea 
from  that  of  epi,  it  must  consequently  signify  into,  in  this 
passage.  A  similar  opposition  in  the  sense  of  these  two  pre- 
positions may  be  seen  in  John  vi.  16,  17.  ''  His  disciples 
went  down  {epi)  to  the  sea,  and  entered  {eis)  into  a  ship. 
So  Mark  xvi.  2,  5.  They  came  {epi)  to  the  sepulchre,  and 
entering  {eis)  into  the  sepulchre.  Acts  xvi  1 9.  They  caught 
Paul  and  Silas  and  drew  them  {eis)  into  them  into  the  mar- 
ket place,  {epi)  to  the  rulers."     See  Matt.  xiii.  48. 

Eis  is  also  opposed  to  the  preposition  ek,  as  you  may 
see  by  consulting  Matt.  xv.  11.  "Not  that  which  goeth 
into  the  mouth  defileth  a  man  ;  but  that  which  cometh  {ck) 
tut  of  the  mouth."  Mark  vi.  51,  54.  Luke  ii.  4.  John 
iv.  47,  54.     And  many  other  passages. 

That  the  preposition  apo  is  frequently  used  to  signify 
mit  of  is  evident  from  Matt.  vii.  4,  5,  and  xiv,  29.      Luke 


TO    THE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  15 

viii.  2,  12,  33,  35,  38.  In  Luke  ii.  4,  and  viii.  33,  it  is  di- 
rectly opposed  to  eis. 

Another  argument  in  favour  of  our  mode  we  drew 
from  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church.  The  early 
members  of  this  church,  we  maintained,  were  the  best 
judges  of  their  own  language  in  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment was  written.  This  argument  you  first  deny  and 
then  confirm,  as  the  reader  may  see  by  what  follows. 
You  say,  ''  There  is  no  evidence  that  they  are  better  qual- 
ified, than  any  other  nation  to  judge  which  meaning  the 
word  baptizo  has,  when  it  is  used  to  express  the  action 
of  baptism.  We  have  as  much  authority  as  they  to  select 
a  meaning  of  the  word  and  apply  it  to  the  ordinance." 

Here  we  are  taught,  that  the  members  of  the  Greek 
church,  though  some  of  them  lived  at  an  early  period,  and 
though  they  spoke  and  wrote  in  that  language,  are  no 
better  qualified  to  judge  of  the  meaning  of  the  word,  6ap- 
tizo^  when  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  than  are 
the  present  French  or  English.  The  members  of  this 
Greek  church  existed  long  before  their  separation  from 
the  Roman  church.  And  in  all  their  societies,  and  from 
their  earliest  days,  they  have  uniformly  practised  immer- 
sion. Yet  you  tell  us  that  they  are  no  better  qualified  to 
say  in  what  sense  the  word  baptizo  should  be  taken,  when 
applied  to  the  ordinance  than  men  of  any  other  nation. 
But  when  you  wished  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the 
Greek  word,  for  disciple,  you  contradict  all  this,  and 
maintain,  that  a  Grecian  must  be  best  qualified  to  use 
this  word  in  its  true  sense,  and  to  make  a  just  application 
of  it.  Towards  the  bottom  of  the  71st  page,  you  quote 
Justin  Martyr  as  saying,  "  several  persons  among  us  of  60 
and  70  years  old  of  both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  to 
Christ  in  their  childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupted." 
The  word  discipled  here  you  sa}^,  '<•  is  radically  the  same, 
which  St.  Matthew  employed  in  recording  Christ's  com- 
mission." This  word  Justin  applied  to  children.  You 
conclude,  that  his  "  knowledge  of  the  Greek  language, 
for  he  wrote  in  Greek,  and  his  proximity  to  the  Apostles, 
qualified  him  to  use  the  word  disciple^  in  its  true  sensc^  and 
make  a  just  application  ofit^  Why  then  were  not  the  fa- 
thers of  the  Greek  church,  who  spake  and  wrote  in  that 
language,  equally  well  qualified  to  use  the  word  baptizo  in 
its  true  sense,  and  to  make  a  just  application  of  it  to  this 
ordinance  ? 

The  arguments,  which  I  drew  from  the  authority  of 
translators,  from  confessions  of  faith,  from  the  concea- 


16 

sions  of  numerous  individuals  and  bodies  of  men,  togeth- 
er with  a  brief  account  how  immersion  was  dropped, 
and  sprinkling  adopted  in  its  room,  you  pass  over  very 
hastily,  as  if  you  felt  conscious,  that  you  could  not  well 
invalidate  their  testimony.  You  think,  however,  that 
if  '^  Wall  were  left  to  dispose  of  himself,-  he  would  throw 
his  weight  into  your  scale." 

That  Mr.  Wail  was  a  strong"  advocate  for  infant  i?n- 
7nersion  is  well  known.  And  it  is  equally  well  known  that 
he  strongly  reprobated  infant  sprinkling,  when  neither 
sickness  nor  danger  of  death  required  that  practice.  He 
commends  the  Baptists  for  adhering  to  immersion,  but 
blames  Pedobaptists  for  dropping  it,  and  sprinkling  on  all 
occasions.  He  blames  us  for  not  admitting  the  validity 
of  sprinkling  in  urgent  cases.  So  far  as  the  mode  is  con- 
cerned, and  for  this  only  was  he  quoted,  let  him  dispose 
of  himself,  and  he  will  throw  his  influence  decidedly  in 
our  favour. 

Another  argument  v.hich  we  employed  was  taken 
from  the  testimony  of  ecclesiastical  historians.  This 
proof  you  first  attempt  to  invalidate,  but  at  last  you  give 
it  full  sanction  by  your  own  broad  concessions.  So  that 
I  have  nothing  to  do,  but  to  repeat  my  testimonies,  and 
to  quote  your  acknowledgments. 

In  my  Letters  I  made  the  following  selections,  ''  How 
can  we  be  placed  in  a  condition  of  likeness  to  his  death  ? 
Answer,  by  being  buried  with  him  in  baptism.  How  are 
we  to  go  down  with  him  into  the  grave  ?  By  imitating  the 
burial  of  Christ  in  baptism  ;  for  the  bodies  of  the  baptized 
are  in  a  sense  buried  in  water.  By  three  immersions  Ave 
administer  this  important  ceremony  of  baptism,  that  death 
may  be  represented  in  a  figure.*'  Arch.  Bishop  Basil. 
Eusebius,  speaking  of  Novatian,  says,  "he  received  bap- 
tism, being  besprinkled  with  water  on  the  bed  where  he 
lay,  if  that  can  be  called  baptism.''^  Du  Pin  says,  in  the  three 
first  centuries,  they  plunged  those  three  times  in  the  wa- 
ter, whom  they  baptized.  The  author  of  the  History  of  the 
Church  by  an  impartial  hand,  says,  speaking  of  the  three 
first  centuries,  to  me  it  seems  evident,  that  their  usual 
custom  was  to  immerse,  or  to  dip  the  whole  body.  Greg- 
ory informs  us  that  baptism  in  the  primitive  times  Avas 
administered  by  immersion. 

Says  Mosheim,  those  who  had  formed  the  resolution 
of  mending  their  lives,  were  initiated  by  John  into 
the   kingdom    of  ih.^    Redeemer  by   immersion.      The 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  11 

sacrament  of  baptism  was  administered  in  the  second  cen- 
tury without  the  publick  assemblies  in  places  appointed 
and  prepared  for  that  purpose,  and  was  performed  by 
immersion.  Those  adult  persons  that  desired  to  be  bap- 
tized received  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  according  to 
the  ancient  primitive  manner  of  celebrating  that  institu- 
tion, even  by  immersion. 

Dr.  Cave,  in  his  primitive  Christianity,  says,  the  action 
having  proceeded  thus  far,  the  body  to  be  baptized  was 
wholly  immersed  or  put  under  water,  which  was  almost 
the  universal  custom  of  those  times. 

Eusebius,  in  his  life  of  Constantine  the  Great,  records 
the  following  speech  of  trie  dying  Emperor.  "  This  is 
the  hour,  i.  e.  the  hour  of  baptism,  wherein  we  may  also 
enjoy  that  seal  which  confers  immortality.  I  had  hereto- 
fore taken  the  resolution  of  doing  this  in  the  stream  of 
the  river  Jordan,  %vhere  our  Saviour  himself,  in  likeness 
to  us,  is  recorded  to  have  partaken  of  the  laver.'' 

Gregory,  speaking  of  the  fourth  century,  says,  "  many 
were  so  desirous  of  receiving  this  initiatory  rite  in  the 
same  place  with  Christ,  that  they  delayed  baptism,  till 
they  could  travel  into  Judea.  The  Emperor  Constantine 
was  among  the  number,  and  earnestly  desired  to  receive 
baptismal  rite  in  the  waters  of  Jordan." 

When  you  had  read  all  this,  you  add,  "  We  are  ready  to 
admit  all  that  these  historians  have  said  in  these  quotations^ 
Certainly  this  is  a  sweeping  concession.  It  is  truly  sur- 
prising that  it  should  come  from  you  after  you  had  labour- 
ed so  hard  to  prove,  that  there  is  no  certain  evidence, 
that  either  John  or  the  Apostles,  or  primitive  fathers  of 
the  three  first  centuries,  practised  immersion  ! 

But  here  you  grant  that  they  almost  universally  im- 
mersed, or  dipped  the  whole  body.  How  far  this  ac- 
knowledgment differs  from  yielding  the  debate  on  the 
mode,  the  reader  will  judge.  VVe  know  that  in  the  third 
century  they  admitted  the  validity  of  sprinkling  only  in 
cases  of  necessity.  These  are  the  few  exceptions  to 
which  Dr.  Cave  alludes.  But  this  opinion  of  the  fathers 
is  not  supported  by  scripture.  It  was  an  error  which 
grew  out  of  their  notion,  that  baptism  was  necessary  for 
salvation.  It  furnishes  no  rule  for  us  to  sprinkle  the  dying, 
who  cannot  be  baptized,  according  to  the  command  of 
Christ.  Much  less  will  it  sanction  sprinkling  in  all  cases 
whether  in  sickness  or  health,  in  warm  climates  or  cold, 
L2 


LQ  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE'S   RtitLY 

where  no  such  necessity  exists,  which  the  ancients  belief- 
ed  would  justify  and  sanction  such  a  departure  from  the  di- 
vine institute.  If  these  ancients  were  now  on  the  earth,  it 
is  presumed  they  would  raise  a  loud  voice  against  the  gen- 
eral practice  of  sprinkling,  where  no  necessity  can  be  plead 
in  its  favour.  But  further,  you  in  this  concession  im- 
plicitly admit  that  the  primitive  church  did  almost  uni- 
versally understand  haptizo^  to  mean  to  immerse  ;  unless 
you  mean  to  say,  that  they  did  that  almost  universally, 
which  they  knew  this  word  did  not  require.  This,  it  is 
presumed,  you  will  not  pretend.  Without  doubt  you  will 
say,  that  they  were  as  much  agreed  in  the  meaning  of  that 
word,  as  they  were  in  immersion.  Here  then  you  grant 
that  this  word  did  among  the  primitive  christians  mean 
to  dip.  But  in  page  19th  you  contradict  all  this,  and  say, 
''  It  is  evident  the  word  baptize  in  Christ's  and  the 
Apostles  day  did  not  invariably,  nor  does  it  appear  that 
it  did  generally  signify  to  immerse." 

Before  I  leave  this  subject,  I  would  make  some  re- 
marks on  your  words  taken  from  BIr.  Enoch  Pond.  You 
quote  him  thus.  '•''  Constantino  the  great,  being  clothed 
with  white  garments,  and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was  baptized 
in  a  solemn  manner  by  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nicomidia. 
Bu  Pin's  Hist.  Eu.  vol.  2nd.  p.  84."  I  had  said,  '  he  was 
baptized  in  the  usual  wa3^'  As  you  had  no  copy  of  Du 
Pin,  you  could  not  tell,  who  was  correct,  Mr.  P.  or  my- 
self. I  had  and  still  have  Du  Pin,  and  have  turned  to  the 
page  he  mentions,  and  do  not  there,  nor  any  where  else, 
iind  a  single  word  which  Mr.  Pond  has  quoted  !  I  have 
a  London  edition,  printed  1 724.  What  edition  Mr.  Pond  us- 
ed I  know  not. 

The  last  argument  which  we  employed  was  taken  from 
the  design  of  baptism.  This  "  was  designed  to  be  a  sym- 
bolical representation  of  our  spiritual  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  to  newness  of  life."  From  this  design  we 
inferred  that  this  ordinance  must  be  performed  by  immer- 
sion. Change  this  rite  into  sprinkling,  and  this  design 
vanishes  from  the  view  ;  because  sprinkling  is  no  symbol- 
ical representation  of  our  burial  and  resurrection  with 
Christ.  You,  sir,  and  your  brethren,  would  at  once  feel 
the  force  of  this  reasoning-  if  it  were  applied  to  the  other 
ordinance,  the  Lord's  Supper.  Mr.  Scott  maintains  that 
Papists  in  withholding  the  cup  from  the  laity,  and  by  giv- 
ing an  unbroken  wafer  instead  of  broken  bread^  have  chang- 
ed the  Lord's  Supper,  till  it  has  become  quite  another 


TO   TFIE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  19 

thing,  from  its  original  design.     He  believed  that  this  or- 
dinance should  be  observed  in  such  manner  as  to  give   a 
symbolical  representation  of  the  shedding  of  Christ's  blood, 
and  the  breaking  of  his  body  on  the  tree  of  the  cross.  But  in 
the  Catholic  church,  this  rite  is  so  observed,  that  of  these 
there  is  no  representation.     Paul  says,  '•  for  as  often  as 
ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  sAory  forth  the 
Lord's  death.''''     Whenever  therefore  this  ordinance  is  so 
observed  that  the   suiferings  and  death  of  Christ  are  not 
shown,  it  is  changed  from  its  primitive  purpose.     "  We, 
being  many,  are  one  bread,  and  one  body :  for  we  are  all 
partakers  of  that  one  bread."     Whitby  in  commenting  on 
this  verse,  says,  these  words,  'the  loal  or  bread  is  one,  and 
we  ail  partake  of  one  loaf,  and  therefore  are  one  body,' 
show  how  grossly  the   church  of  Rome  has  varied  from 
Christ's -institution,  in   distributing  to  the   communicants 
severally  an  unbroken  wafer ;  so  that  they  are  neither 
partakers  of  one  loaf,  or  bread,  or  of  bread  broken.     But, 
sir,  is  there  a  greater  difference    between  eating  an  un- 
broken wafer,  and  eating  broken  bread,  than  there  is  be- 
tween  sprinkling   and  immersion  ?    Is  it  not  just   as  evi- 
dent from  scripture,  that  baptism  ^sas  designed  to  be  a 
symbolical  representation  of  burial  and   resurrection,   as 
it    is,    that    the    Eucharist     should    show    the     Lord's 
death?     Paul  says  in  the  sixth  of  Ptom.  "'•  therefore   we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  ;"  and  in  Col.  ii.   12,  he 
says,  wherein,  i.  e.   in  baptism,  ye  are  risen  with  him. 
Here  Paul  treats  of  the  nature  of  baptism.     It  is  a  burial. 
How  are  saints  buried  with  Christ  ?    '•''  by  baptism."     In 
what  have  they  risen  with  Christ  ?  in  baptism.     He  next 
treats  of  the  design  of  baptism.     If  any  one  had  asked  the 
Apostle,  ^'hy  or  for  what  purpose  saints  were  buried  and 
raised  with  Christ  in  baptism,   he  would  hav  e  told  him  it 
was  done,   "'  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  gloiy  ofthe   I'ather,   even  so  also  we  shoidd 
'walk  in  newness  of  life.''''       Doth  not  the  Apostle,  sir,  in 
this  place  teach  us  with  great  clearness,   that  believers 
were  buried  in  the  water,  and  then  raised  up  out  of  it  in 
baptism,  to  represent  by  outward  signs  that  they  by  pro- 
fession  were   dead   to  sin,  and  that  their  soul  had  been 
quickened  and  raised  from  their  moral  grave,  to  live  a 
new    and  holy  life  ?    In   the  manner,  in  v/hich  you  cele- 
brate this  rite,  there  is  an  entire  departure  from  its  orig- 
inal design.     Sprinkling  is  no  symbol   of  suffering,  burial, 
or  resurrection,  any  more  than  an  unbroken  wafer  i>  a 


26 

symbol  of  the  broken  body  of  Christ.  Have  you  not  then 
as  grossly  varied  from  the  primitive  design  of  baptism,  as 
the  Papists  have  from  the  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ? 
With  you,  sprinkling  is  designed  to  be  the  sign  of  an  oath 
between  God  and  believing  parents,  and  a  sign  of  inward 
pollution,  and  of  the  need  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  Paul  viewed  baptism  as  intended  for  very 
different  ends. 

Let  us  now  attend  a  little  to  your  efforts  to  prove  that 
the  design  of  baptism  furnishes  no  proof  in  support  of  our 
mode.  You  ask,  ••'  what  resemblance  is  there  between 
hatred  and  renouncing  of  sin,  and  immersion  or  baptism 
in  any  mode  ?  ^y  resurrection  to  newness  of  life,  I  un- 
derstand spiritual  life  or  devotedness  of  heart  and  life  to 
God.  /perceive  no  resemblance  between  this  and  a  per- 
son being  raised  out  of  the  water.  If  there  be  no  resem- 
blance between  two  things,  one  cannot  be  a  symbolical 
representation  of  the  other."  In  this  last  remark  you  are 
perfectly  correct.  Says  Mr.  Blake,  "  Sacraments  are  an- 
alogical signs,  such  as  carry  analogy  and  proportion  with 
the  thing  signiiied  ;  they  have  ever  an  aptness  in  them, 
for  resemblance."  Says  Austin,  '-'•  If  sacraments  carry  no 
resemblance  of  the  things  whereof  they  are  sacraments^ 
they  are  no  sacraments  at  all."  If  then  you  can  per- 
ceive no  resemblance  between  hatred  and  renunciation  of 
sin  and  baptism  in  any  mode,  we  would  ask,  what  resem- 
blance you  perceive  between  sprinkling  a  few  drops  of 
water  on  the  face  of  an  adult,  and  his  dying  to  and  renun- 
ciation of  sin  ?  Or,  when  you  sprinkle  an  infant,  what  re- 
semblance canyon  discover  between  that  ceremony  and  the 
necessity  of  an  inward  cleansing  ?  If,  as  you  say,  there 
be  no  resemblance  between  baptism  in  any  mode,  and 
death  to  and  resurrection  from  sin,  what  then  does  it  re- 
semble ?  And  why  do  you  use  water  in  any  mode  ?  Can 
you  discover  a  resemblance  between  sprinkling  an  infant 
and  the  duty  of  its  parents  to  pray  for  and  to  train  it  up  ia 
(he  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ?  You  grant, 
that  I  am  ''  not  alone  in  the  belief  that  baptism  by  immer- 
sion is  a  designed  representation  of  the  death,  burial  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Rom.  vi.  4.  and  Col.  ii.  12,  are 
brought  in  support  of  this  opinion.  But  /  can  perceive 
no  similarity  between  Christ  suspended  on  a  cross,  breath- 
ing out  his  life,  and  a  person  put  under  water.  /  can  per- 
ceive no  similarity  between  the  interment  of  the  dead 
body  of  Jesus  m  a  tomb  hewn  out  of  a  rock,  and  a  mo- 


TO    THE    FOREGOING    LETTERS.  21 

mentary  immersion  of  a  living  person  in  water.  /  can 
perceive  no  similarity  between  Christ  rising*  to  life  from 
the  tomb,  and  a  person  rising  out  of  the  water,  as  he  Avas 
put  in.  Suppose  the  apostle  was  speaking  of  spiritual 
baptism,  and  there  is  similarity  and  consistency. '''* 

Spiritual  baptism,  you  correctly  define  to  be  a  "hatred 
and  renouncing  of  sin."  But  between  this,  and  water 
baptism  in  any  mode,  you  say  there  is  no  resemblance. 
You  have  also  told  us,  that  between  water  baptism,  and 
the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  there  is  no 
resemblance.  The  two  things,  then,  between  which  you 
discover  a  resemblance,  are  spiritual  baptism,  and  the 
literal  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  What, 
sir,  can  you  discover  no  resemblance  between  dying  to 
sin  and  baptism  in  any  mode,  and  yet  discover  a  strong 
resemblance  between  dying  to  sin  and  Christ's  dying  on 
the  cross  ?  Can  you  perceive  no  resemblance  between 
burying  the  old  man  of  sin,  and  burial  under  Avater  in  bap- 
tism ?  And  yet  perceive  a  resemblance  between  bury- 
ing the  old  man  of  sin  and  Christ's  burial  in  the  tomb  ? 
Can  you  discover  no  resemblance  between  rising  to  new- 
ness of  life  and  rising  out  of  the  water,  and  yet  discover 
a  resemblance  in  rising  to  newness  of  life  and  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ  from  the  grave  ? 

It  is  well,  sir,  that  you  have  mentioned  your  blindness 
so  repeatedly,  when  you  wrote  the  above  paragraphs. 
If  you  had  not,  I  should  have  been  utterly  astonished  that 
they  should  have  dropped  from  your  pen.  You  employ 
the  phrase,  /  can  perceive^  no  \ess  than  five  times  in  the 
compass  ofa  few  lines.  I  believe  this  ample  testimony, 
which  you  have  given  of  your  want  of  perception.  But 
you  did  not  expect  that  the  blur,  which  was  upon  your 
sight,  would  open  the  eyes  of  others.  What  if  you  could 
not  discern  this  resemblance,  will  this  prove  that  others 
cannot  ?  Thousands  of  saints  and  martyrs  have  seen  and 
rejoiced  in  this  resemblance.  But  after  all  that  you  have 
here  declared,  you  nevertheless  say,  even  before  you 
leave  this  page,  that  "  water  is  an  emblem  of  purity,  and 
the  application  of  it  well  represents  the  purifying  influ- 
ences of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  in  the  next  page  but  one, 
you  say,  "  baptism  with  water  represents  the  baptism  of 
the  Hol}'^  Ghost."  If  you  had  a  clear  perception  of  your 
subject,  why  should  you  so  frequently  have  been  guilty 
of  such  flagrant  contradictions  ? 

I  am,  &c. 


522  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORe's    REPLY 

LETTER  VII. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

In  this  letter  my  observations  will  t)e  somewhat  mis- 
Gellaneous. 

You  have  grossly  perverted  my  comment  on  the  7th 
of  Mark;  my  exposition  of  the  4th  verse,  you  have  taken 
and  applied  to  the  3d  verse.  The  washing  in  these  verses 
I  considered  were  of  two  kinds,  one  referring  to  the 
hands,  and  the  other  to  the  body.  Did  I  suppose  that 
Christ  had  been  to  the  market,  bought  provision,  brought 
them  to  the  pharisee's  house,  and  that  the  pharisee  mar- 
velled because  he  did  not  wash  these  provisions  before 
he  ate  ?  Certainly  not.  And  had  you  discovered  how 
palpably  you  had  misrepresented  my  language,  you  would 
have  suppressed  your  string  of  interrogatives,  which,  it 
seems,  you  uttered  with  much  self-complacency. 

In  page  21st you  say,  "It  appears  the  Jews  expected 
from  their  prophecies,  that  when  John,  the  predicted 
Elias,  and  the  Messiah  should  come,  they  would  administer 
baptism."  In  the  22nd  page  you  say,  "  from  these  re- 
marks it  appears,  that  christian  baptism  was  taught  or 
foretold  by  the  prophets."  By  christian  baptism  here 
you  certainly  mean  that,  which  John  administered.  Bu£ 
on  the  next  page  you  adduce  many  arguments  to  prove 
that  John's  baptism  was  not  a  christian  rite. 

You  wonder  wh}'^  I  passed  over  the  famous  text  in 
1  Cor.  X.  1,2.  You  seem  to  imagine  I  was  apprized, 
that  the  passage  would  be  refractory  in  my  hands,  if  I 
attempted  to  shape  it  into  an  argument  in  my  favour. 
No  such  fears  were  entertained.  It  is  here  said  the  Jews 
were  all  baptized  ijithe  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  Between 
the  passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  sea,  and  bap- 
tism, there  are  some  points  of  resemblance.  The  text 
must  be  taken  figuratively  by  whomsoever  employed. 
They  went  down  into  the  sea,  were  quite  surrounded  by 
water,  and  then  they  came  up  out  of  the  sea.  So  can- 
didates for  baptism  go  down  into  the  water,  and  then  come 
up  out  of  the  water.  But  between  sprinkling  and  this 
march  into  the  sea,  and  emerging  from  it,  there  are  no 
points  of  resemblance.  I  know  you  say  that  it  is  highly 
probable  they  were  sprinkled  by  the  sprays,  or  fine  par- 
ticles of  water,  wliich  flew  from  the  breaking  waves,  and 
))j  mist  from  the  cloud.     We  are  told  by  the  inspired  pen- 


TO   THE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  ^3 

man,  that  "  the  depths  were  congealed  in  the  heart  of 
the  sea,"  Exo.  xv.  8,  and  that  they  stood  up  like  walls 
on  each  hand.  How  could  sprays  be  blown  from  congeal* 
ed  walls  of  water? 

Is  there  any  more  probability,  that  they  were  sprinkled 
from  the  cloud  ?  This  was  not  then  over  them,  but  be- 
tween them  and  the  Egyptians.  Beside,  the  face  of  the 
cloud  towards  the  Jews  was  red,  like  a  pillar  of  fire,  and 
there  was  not  the  least  appearance  of  rain  or  mist  about 
it.  Moreover,  the  distance  of  this  cloud  from  the  van  of 
the  army  of  Israel  must  have  been  considerable.  More 
than  half  a  million  marched  into  the  sea.  We  are  not 
told  how  wide  was  the  channel,  nor  how  broad  their  col* 
umn.  But  it  is  likely  that  their  line  of  march  stretched 
over  several  miles.  Now  on  your  plan,  a  rain  or  mist 
must  proceed  from  this  fery  cloud,  and  then  be  driven  by 
winds  a  number  of  miles  so  as  to  sprinkle  the  distant  front 
of  the  army. 

Perhaps  you  may  think,  that  if  I  pass  your  submitted 
journal,  I  shall  shrink  from  a  hard  task.  I  am  not  con- 
scious of  any  fear  to  meet  this  or  any  other  portion  of  your 
reasoning.  Upon  your  journal  I  will  just  observe,  that  it 
doth  not  contain  one  word  of  scripture  which  was  ever 
intended  to  describe  your  mode  of  administering  this 
christian  ordinance  ! 

In  page  37,  yon  inform  us  that,  "  the  ancient  christians, 
when  they  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized 
naked.  As  it  might  be  expected,  these  baptisms  were 
sometimes  attended  with  great  confusion  and  tumult. 
Some  of  the  outrages,  committed  on  these  occasions,  are 
too  bad  for  description." 

You  do  not  I  suppose  mean  to  insinuate  by  your  empha- 
sis on  the  word  immersion,  that  this  was  rarely  practised  in 
those  primitive  times  ?  Because  you  have  granted  that  im- 
mersion was  the  almost  universal  mode  in  the  earliest  ages. 
Neither  could  you  mean  that  these  naked  folks,  and  this 
confusion  and  tumult,  and  these  outrages^  which  ''  might 
be  expected  from"  this  zvay  of  baptizing^  belong  to 
the  Baptists,  because,  according  to  your  chronology^  they 
did  not  exist  till  after  the  commencement  of  the  12th 
century.  Wall  mentions  immediately  after  the  passage 
you  have  quoted  from  him,  an  outrage,  which  took  place 
in  the  great  baptistery  of  Constantinople.  See  him,  page 
479.  But  this  outrage  was  a  military  assault,  which  took 
place  in  consequence  of  hostilities  between  two  contending 


24  STRICTURES    ON    Mil.    MOORE'S    REPLY 

bishops,  and  which  would  have  occurred,  if  sprinkling 
had  been  the  practice.  Was  this  passage  in  your  eye, 
when  you  insinuated,  that  this  outrage  was  the  offspring 
of  immersion  ?  Was  the  contention  of  two  ecclesiasticks, 
or  immersion^  the  cause  of  this  outrage  ? 

Yours,  &c. 


LETTER  VIII. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir, 

Having  finished  your  observations  on  the  mode,  you 
proceed  to  the  more  important  particular,  the  subject 
of  baptism. 

You  begin  by  quoting  the  great  apostolical  commis-,? 
sion.  I  had  maintained,  that  this  commission  does  not- 
contain  infant  baptism.  This  opinion  of  mine  you  viewed 
as  a  material  error,  and  it  was  your  object  to  refute  this, 
as  you  thought,  false  sentiment.  But,  sir,  you  certainly 
appear  in  this  in  a  very  inconsistent  attitude.  You  first 
labour  at  considerable  length  to  prove  that  infant  baptism 
is  not  contained  in  this  commission.  And  you  assign  the 
reasons  why  it  is  not  embraced.  Infants,  you  contend,  were 
baptized  with  proselyted  parents,  when  they  were  admitted 
into  the  Jewish  church.  This  practice,  you  say,  the  Apos- 
tles well  knew,  and  therefore  there  was  no  need  that  infant 
baptism  should  be  specifically  mentioned  in  the  commission. 
After  this  you  tell  us  that  "  infant  baptism  appears  to  be 
contained  in  the  commission,  as  penned  by  one  evangelist." 
But,  sir,  if  it  were  so  evidently  contained  in  this  commis- 
sion, or  any  where  else  in  the  Bible,  why  did  you  not  pro- 
ceed to  show  directly  where  it  is  expressly  enjoined. 
Why  did  you  not  show  book,  chapter  and  verse,  in  which 
God  had  commanded  believing  parents  to  sprinkle  their 
children  ?  If  infant  baptism  be  contained  in  any  part  of 
scripture,  you  could  have  found  the  places  where  it  is 
mentioned,  and  exhibited  them,  as  easily  as  you  could  find 
proof  of  this  practice  in  the  Talmudic  writings.  If  the 
Bible  would  furnish  you  with  proof,  why  do  you  leave 
this,  and  resort  to  the  doubtful  testimonies  of  the  rabbins? 
Yourself  aad  Wall,  and  Lightfoot,  and  many  others,  sup- 
port pedobaptism  by  arguments  drawn  from  the  Talmud 
or  Misnah  of  Jewish  doctors.  By  this  conduct  you  pro- 
claim to  the  world  in  the  loudest  manner  your  painful 
conviction,  that  infant  baptism  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
oracles  of  truth. 


TO   TftE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  2b 

For  if  you  believed  it  was,  why  did  you  not  bring  your 
support  from  this  infallible  source,  and  not  resort  to  the 
corrupt  writings  of  superstitious  Jews  ?  This  question 
I  wish  you  seriously  to  consider. 

You,  and  other  learned  men,  can  read  the  ponderous 
volumes  of  the  traditionary  writings  of  the  Jews.  And 
after  tumbling  over  many  pages,  you  may  find  what  you 
think  is  proof  of  infant  baptism.  But  what  are  private 
and  common  christians  to  do,  who  can  have  no  access  to 
these  volumes  ?  and  if  they  had,  they  could  not  understand 
the  language  in  which  they  are  written.  Can  you  believe 
that  Christ  left  his  church  to  gain  their  main  proof  for  a 
positive  institution  from  a  source,  which  he  himself  point- 
edly condemned  ?  How  severely  did  he  rebuke  the  Jews 
for  holding  to  traditionary  washings  !  See  Mark  vii.  3,  4, 
7  and  8.  "  For  the  pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except 
they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of 
the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  ex- 
cept they  wash,  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things 
there  be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  wash- 
ing of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables.  How- 
beit,  in  vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines, 
the  commandments  of  men.  For  laying  aside  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men,  ajs  the 
washing  of  pots  and  cups  ;  and  many  other  such  like  things 
ye  do."  If  proselyte  baptism  then  existed,  it  was  but  a 
tradition  of  men.  And  how  can  you  tell  but  that  Christ 
meant  to  put  it  down  by  this  sweeping  anathema  ?  That 
the  reader  may  see  the  ground  you  take,  we  present  the 
following  extracts  from  your  Reply.  "  But  it  doth  not  fol- 
low from  this,  that  they  had  no  knowledge  of  baptism  be- 
fore this  time.  Had  they  been  entirely  ignorant  of  this 
rite,  it  seems  that  the  commission  given  them  would  have 
been  explicit,  as  to  mode  and  subject,  if  it  were  designed 
that  only  one  mode  should  be  practised.  But  if  they 
knew  any  thing  about  the  rite  of  baptism,  what  they  knew 
and  what  was  in  familiar  use,  needed  not  to  be  contained 
specifically  in  the  commission. 

'•  This  principle  is  observed  in  civil  laws.  Legislators, 
when  they  pass  an  act,  do  not  recapitulate  the  laws,  which 
they  had  enacted,  and  with  which  the  present  one  was 
connected.  They  presume  that  the  people  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  laws  existing ;  and  of  course  they 
need  not  specify  in  one  act  what  was  contained  in  another^ 
M 


^G  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE^S    REPLY 

with  which  it  was  intimately  connected."  Yon  then  pro- 
ceeds to  inquire  what  the  Apostles  knew,  and  what  was 
the  practice  of  baptism,  when  they  received  their  com- 
mission. "  The  Apostles  wereJews.  They  were  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  method  of  converting",  or  proselyting 
Gentiles,  and  of  bringing"  them  under  the  discipline  of  their 
religion.  It  is  evident  that  the  custom  of  the  Jews  before 
our  Saviour's  time  (and  as  they  themselves  affirm,  from  the 
beginning  of  their  law)  was  to  baptize,  as  well  as  circum- 
cise any  proselyte  that  came  over  to  them  from  the  nations. 
This  does  fully  appear  both  from  the  books  of  the  Jews 
themselves,  and  also  of  others  that  understood  the  Jewish 
customs,  and  have  written  of  them.  They  reckoned  all 
mankind  beside  themselves  to  be  in  an  unclean  state,  and 
not  capable  of  being  entered  into  the  covenant  of  Israelites 
without  a  washing  or  baptism,  to  denote  their  purification 
from  uncleanness. — And  so  in  all  ages  when  an  Ethnic  is 
willing  to  enter  into  covenant  and  gather  himself  under 
the  wings  of  the  Majesty  of  God,  and  take  upon  him 
the  yoke  of  the  law,  he  must  be  circumcised,  and  bap- 
tized, and  bring  a  sacrifice  ;  or  if  it  be  a  woman,  be  bap- 
tized, and  bring  a  sacrifice.  As  it  is  written  ;  as  you  are, 
so  shall  the  stranger  be.  How  are  you  ?  By  circumcision, 
and  baptism,  and  bringing  of  a  sacrifice. — It  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  if  any  such  proselyte,  who  came  over  to  the 
Jewish  religion  and  was  baptized  into  it,  had  any  infant 
children  then  born  to  him  ;  they  also  were  at  the  Father's 
desire  circumcised  and  baptized,  and  admitted  as  Prose- 
lytes. The  child's  inability  to  declare  or  promise  for  him- 
self was  not  looked  on  as  a  bar  against  his  reception  into 
the  covenant;  but  the  desire  of  his  father  to  dedicate  him 
to  the  true  God,  was  counted  available  and  sufficient  to 
justify  his  admission. 

"This  is  also  plainly  proved  and  agreed  by  all  the  learn- 
<^d  men  aforesaid,and  by  all  others,  to  have  been  the  custom 
of  the  Jews  ;  that  if  they  found  any  child  that  had  been  ex- 
posed in  the  fields,  woods,  or  highways  by  the  Heathens ; 
or  if  they  took  in  war  any  infant  children,  whom  they 
brought  home  as  booty,  and  intended  to  bring  them  up 
in  their  religion,  they  baptized  them  in  infancy  and  ac- 
counted Ihem  as  proselytes. — These  cases  were  very  fre- 
quent.— So  that  Dr.  Lightfoot  says,  the  baptizing  of  in- 
fants was  a  thing  as  well  known  in  the  church  of  the  Jews^ 
MS  ever  it  has  been  in  the  Christian  church.  Wall's  Hist* 
TrS.  Bap.  pt.  1.  pp.  3,9,  13.    . 


TO    THE    FOREGOING  l^ETTERS.  21 

"From  these  quotations,  which  are  well  substantiated^ 
we  see  the  Jews'  method  of  making-  proselytes  from  the 
heathen.  The  Apostles  were  Jews  converted  to  Chris- 
tianity. Christ,  when  he  gave  them  a  commission,  author- 
ized them  to  proselyte  heathen,  not  to  the  Jewish,  but  to 
the  christian  religion,  if  he  had  designed  that  tliey  should 
have  proselyted  them  in  precisely  the  same  manner,  in 
which  they  had  before  proselyted  them,  he  would,  un- 
doubtedly, have  required  his  Apostles  in  general  terms 
(not  expressing  the  particulars  of  the  method)  to  prose- 
lyte them,  or  he  would  have  expressed  all  the  particulars 
to  which  they  were  accustomed.  Instead  of  this  he  com- 
mands his  Apostles  to  baptize  the  Heathen,  whom  they 
should  proselyte  or  convert.  As  he  particularized  bap- 
tism, and  that  only,  it  is  a  faij'  conclusion  that  he  designed 
that  circumcision  and  sacrifice  should  not  be  used  at  the 
initiation  of  Heathen  into  the  christian  church.  Had 
he  designed  that  any  alteration  should  be  made  in  respect 
to  subjects,  he  would  as  probably  have  particularized  in 
respect  to  them,  as  in  respect  to  the  method  of  admit- 
ting them.  Had  he  particularized  adults,  and  them  only, 
it  would  be  as  fair  conclusion  that  infants  should  be  left 
out  of  the  number  of  subjects  to  be  proselyted,  as  that 
circumcision  and  sacrifice  should  be  left  out  of  the  method 
of  initiating  them.  But  as  he  particularized  nothing  in 
respect  to  subjects,  it  is  a  fair  conclusion  that  he  designed 
that  the  same  description  of  persons  should  be  proselyted 
and  baptized  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  which  had 
been  under  the  Jewish  dispensation."     pp.  41,  42,  43. 

Here  you  lay  down  your  first  principles,  your  strong 
foundation,  on  which  you  rear  your  structure  of  Pedo- 
baptism.  For  the  present  I  will  admit,  for  argument's 
sake,  your  grand  basis,  and  proceed  to  show  that  the 
broad  principles,  which  you  have  adopted,  will  in  their 
legitimate  consequences  overturn  your  whole  theory. 

1 .  If  proselyte  baptism  be  the  origin  of  infant  baptism, 
then  this  latter  rests  for  its  support,  not  on  the  Bible, 
but  upon  mere  human  tradition.  See  Wall,  p.  53d,  Istpt. 
Ed.  2nd.  No  such  institution  is  found  in  the  law  of  God  ; 
or  that  any  such  ceremony  was  ever  observed  cannot  be 
learned  from  the  whole  history  of  the  Bible.  At  best 
it  is  only  an  invention  of  man. 

2.  You  must  hold  to  immersion.  All  the  authorities 
on  which  you  rely,  teach  you  that  proselytes  were  dip- 
ped when  taken  into  the  church.     Of  this,  I  can  bring 


28  STRICTURES   ON    MR.    MOORe's   REPLY 

the  most  direct  and  ample  proof.  But  for  brevity's 
sake,  I  shall  only  refer  to  the  places  where  it  may  be 
found.  I  presume  that  neither  you  nor  any  of  your 
brethren  will  dispute  this,  or  ever  wish  to  see  it 
exhibited.  Such  proof  is  directly  against  your  prac- 
tice. See  Wall,  pp.  44,  45,  59.  Now  let  us  take 
for  our  guide  one  of  your  grand  rules.  "  What  the 
Apostles  knew,  and  what  was  in  familiar  use  respecting 
baptism  needed  not  to  be  specifically  contained  in  the 
commission."  W^henthey  considered  that  Gentiles  and  their 
children  were  received  into  the  Jewish  church  by  im- 
mersion^ they  would  rationally  conclude,  that  when  they 
were  admitted  into  the  christian  church,  they  would  be 
received  the  same  way,"  i.  e.  by  immersion.  "  For  Christ 
made  no  alteration  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism."  All 
this  you  farther  confirm,  when  you  say,  p.  41,  ''•  If  such  a 
commission  were  given  to  a  Baptist  minister,  he  would 
undoubtedly  conclude,  that  he  was  authorized  to  baptize 
according  to  the  method,  which  he  had  before  practised." 
The  Apostles  understood  Christ  to  require  dipping,  and 
they  immersed  in  obedience  to  his  commands.  All  this 
you  must  admit,  or  deny  your  own  sentiments.  AH  your 
laboured  remarks  about  the  studied  ambiguity  of  Christ 
vanish  into  air. 

3.  When  you  receive  a  believing  man,  you  must  bap- 
tize him,  his  wife,  his  children,  and  all  his  servants,  wheth- 
er Ihey  give  evidence  of  grace  or  not.  Says  Wall,  p.  48, 
"•  As  Abraham  of  99  years  old,  and  Ishmael  his  son,  of  13 
years  old,  and  ail  the  males  in  his  house  that  were  eight 
days  old  or  upward,  were  circumcised  at  the  same  time, 
so  such  a  proselyte,  with  all  his,  were  both  baptized,  (and 
circumcised  if  they  were  males)  but  if  they  were  females, 
they  were  baptized."  Now  as  the  Apostles  had  been  ac- 
customed to  see  a  man,  when  proselyted  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  bring  his  wife,  children  and  servants  to  baptism, 
would  they  not  rationally  conclude,  that  they  must  do 
the  same  in  admitting  members  into  the  christian  church  ? 
''  For  Christ  gave  no  intimation  to  them,  that  he  meant 
they  should  make  any  alteration  either  in  the  mode  or 
the  subjects." 

4.  Baptism  must  not  be  applied  to  those  children,  who 
are  born  after  the  conversion  of  their  parents.  See  Wall, 
pp.  50  and  51.  "  What  has  been  said  of  the  baptism  of 
children  of  proselytes,  is  to  be  understood  of  such  child- 
ren as  were  born  before  the  parents  themselves  were 


TO  THE  FOREGOING    LETTERS.  29 

baptized ;  for  all  the  children  that  were  born  to  them 
afterwards,  they  reckoned,  were  clean  by  their  birth  ;  for 
he  that  is  born  of  a  baptized  parent,  is  accounted  as  bap- 
tized. And  Dr.  Lightfoot  gives  this  as  their  rule.  The 
sons  of  Proselytes^  in  follorving  generations^  were  circumcis- 
ed indeed  ;  hut  not  baptized — as  being  already  Israelites. "^"^ 

As  they  employed  this  baptism  to  wash  away  the  filth 
of  heathenism,  so  they  viewed  it  as  improper  to  apply  it 
to  those,  who  were  born  in  their  church,  and  had  never 
been  polluted  with  paganism.  The  Apostles  knew  very 
well  the  design  of  proselyte  baptism,  and  the  extent  of 
its  application.  Would  they  not  then  rationally  conclude 
that  it  must  be  used  for  the  same  purpose  and  employed 
to  the  same  extent  in  the  christian  church,  seeing  Christ 
gave  them  no  intimation  to  the  contrary  ?  You  consider 
the  infants  of  believers  as  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  by  which,  you  mean  the  church.  From  their 
membership  you  infer,  that  they  ought  to  be  baptized. 
See  p.  58.  But  the  ancient  Jews  from  iheir  membership 
inferred  that  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized. 

[  know  that  you  have  endeavored  to  prove  the  perpe- 
tuity of  christian  baptism  by  the  words  of  Christ :  ''  Ex- 
cept a  man  (tis,  any  one)  be  born  of  water  and  of  thq 
spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  But 
this  is  a  direction  to  those,  who  are  out  of  the  kingdom  ; 
and  not  to  those,  who  are  in  the  kingdom.  The  word, 
tis,  any  one,  doth  not  embrace  church  members,  but  non- 
professors.  Hence  this  text  on  your  plan  will  not  prove 
the  perpetuity  of  baptism. 

5.  You  must  say,  that  baptism  is  no  mark  of  parental 
and  divine  obligation,  or  no  sign  of  a  covenant  between 
God  anti  believing  parents,  respecting  their  children. 
The  apostles  well  knew,  that  proselyte  baptism  was  de- 
signed "  to  denote  their  forsaking  and  washing  off  from 
them  all  their  former  profane  and  heathen  practices." 
Again  you  say,  by  citing  Wall,  '•  They  reckoned  all  man- 
kind, beside  themselves,  to  be  in  an  unclean  state,  and 
not  capable  of  being  entered  into  the  covenant  of  Israel, 
without  a  cleansing  or  baptism,  to  denote  their  purifica- 
tion from  their  uncleanness."  This  design  of  baptism 
the  apostles  well  knew,  and  there  was  ^'tio  need  of  its 
being  specifically  mentioned  in  their  commission."  They 
would  therefore  "  rationally  conclude,  that  when  con- 
verts were  made  to  c hristiani ty,"  baptism  must  be  em- 
M  2 


30  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    KIOORE's  RfiPLV 

ployed  upon  them  for  the  same  purpose,  as  it  was  on 
Jewish  proselytes  :  viz.  *'  to  denote  their  washing  off 
the  uncleanness  of  paganism,"  to  be  fit  members  of  the 
fihurch  of  God.  As  Christ,  the  great  legislator  of  Zion, 
gave  no  intimations,  when  he  issued  the  apostolic  com-* 
mission,  that  he  intended  any  change  in  the  design  and 
extent  of  baptism,  so,  as  you  reason,  they  would  fairly 
infer  from  this  silence,  that  no  alteration  was  meant,  and 
of  course  they  would  continue  the  practice  without  any 
alteration  in  its  design  or  extent  of  application.  All  this 
is  confirmed  by  your  own  words.  "  When  Christ  re- 
quired his  apostles  to  proselyte  the  heathen  to  Chris- 
tianity, they  would  proselyte,  as  they  understood  the 
method  of  proselyting,  and  as  they  had  been  accustomed, 
and  Christ,  unless  he  taught  them  to  the  contrary,  would 
expect  it  of  them."  "  From  these  remarks  it  appears 
that  the  reasonings  of  some  Socinians,  Quakers,  and  Mr." 
M's,  will  all  equally  conclude  against  the  design  and  per-' 
petuity  of  Christian  baptism. 

6.  If  you  will  maintain,  that  christian  baptism  succeeds 
to  proselyte  baptism,  you  cannot  then,  without  gross  ab- 
surdity, say  that  it  comes  in  the  lieu  of  circumcision. 
That  you  do  infer  infant  baptism  from  these  two  opposite- 
sources  is  abundantly  evident.  See  p.  57.  Circumcision 
and  proselyte  baptism  were  different  in  their  nature  and 
design.  Now  to  say  that  infant  baptism  is  a  substitute  for 
circumcision,  and  yet  the  successor  of  proselyte  baptism, 
is  as  incorrect,  as  to  say,  that  two  fountains  o£»opposite 
natures,  salt  and  fresh,  should  nevertheless  both  send  forth 
streams  which  perfectly  resemble  each  other,  though  they 
jflow  from  springs  of  dissimilar  qualities.  While  you  rea- 
son from  both  of  those  different  topics  in  favour  of  the  same 
rite,  you  appear  like  a  man,  who  rears  with  one  hand, 
and  demolishes  with  the  other.  Says  Mr.  Hill,  a  pres- 
byter of  Bath  and  Wells,  England :  "  Those  who  say 
baptism  succeeds  circumcision,  virtually  confess  the  Jews 
had  no  such  baptism,  as  that  of  Proselytes,  for  if  there 
was  such  a  rite  among  them,  and  our  Lord  took  this  or- 
dinance from  it,  they  ought  to  say  our  baptism  succeeds 
to  that,  and  not  circumcision.  These  same  persons,  it  is 
true,  at  other  times,  derive  it  from  the  Jewish  baptism 
too  ;  which  plainly  discovers  their  great  prejudices  and 
partiality,  and  how  inconsistent  they  are  with  them- 
selves."    See  Gale,  p.  379, 


to    THE   FOREGOING    LETTERS. 


ii 


7.  You  must  advocate  the  use  of  God-fathers  and 
mothers.  According  to  Mr.  Wall,  the  Apostles  had,  be- 
fore they  received  their  commission,  been  familiarly  ac- 
quainted with  the  use  of  sponsors  in  favour  of  infants  of 
proselytes.  "  As  the  Jews  required  that  for  an  infant 
proselyte,  either  his  father,  or  else  the  consistory,  (or 
church)  of  the  place,  or  at  least  three  grave  persons, 
should  answer  or  undertake  at  his  baptism  ;  so  the  chris- 
tians did  the  same  ;  putting  the  several  interrogatories 
of  the  creed,  and  of  the  renunciation  and  requiring  the 
child's  answer  by  his  parents  or  other  sponsors."  Wall, 
p.  59.  Introduction. 

This  author,  it  seems,  traces  the  origin  of  sponsors  in 
the  christian  church  to  their  use  in  the  introduction  of 
the  children  of  proselytes  into  the  Jewish  church. 

8.  If  this  be  the  foundation  of  infant  baptism,  then  per^ 
sons  baptizing  themselves,  without  any  administrator  at 
all,  will  be  supported  by  it,  as  this  was  unquestionably 
the  way  in  which  the  baptisms  referred  to  were  some- 
times observed. 

Thus  we  have  shown  some  of  the  inevitable  conse- 
quences of  your  theory.  If  it  were  reduced  to  general 
practice,  all  our  churches  would  at  once  be  changed  into 
Jewish  synagogues,  and  this  rite  of  initiation  would  be 
attended  with  all  the  ceremonies  of  their  superstitious 
rabbins. 

We  will  conclude  this  examination  in  your  own  words 
with  a  little  variation.  '•'  He  lays  down  his  arguments, 
respecting-  pagans,  converted  to  Judaism,  and  draws  his 
conclusions,  respecting  Gentiles  converted  to  Christianity. 
This  is  a  species  of  reasoning  which  does  not  well  agree 
with  the  rules  of  logic." 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  thus  far  I  have  only 
granted,  for  argument's  sake,  what  I  do  not  believe  to  be 
true  ;  viz.  That  proselyte  baptism  existed  in  the  davs 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles.  That  it  existed  some  time 
after,  I  do  not  deny.  The  reasons  of  my  belief  1  will 
briefly  assign. 

I.  The  Old  Testament  no  where  mentions  or  alludes 
to  such  a  ceremony  as  proselyte  baptism.  It  tells  how 
proselytes  were  to  be  admitted,  and  how  they  were  ac- 
tually received.  There  was  only  one  law  for  the  stran- 
ger and  for  the  home  born  Israelite.  See  Exod.  xii.  48,  49. 
The  particular  ceremonies  to  be  observed  at  the  marriage 


32  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORE's  REPLY 

of  a  Jew  to  a  pagan  woman,  taken  in  war,  are  mentioned 
in  Deut.  xxi.  10,  but  nothing  is  here  said  of  her  being  bap- 
tized. When  Ezra  returned  from  Babylon  many  pagans 
separated  themselves  unto  them  from  the  filthiness  of 
the  heathen,  and  united  with  the  Jews  in  eating  the  pass- 
over,  but  no  mention  is  here  made  of  their  baptism. 

2.  There  is  no  mention  of  this  kind  of  baptism  in  the 
New  Testament.  Proselytes  are  mentioned,  Matt,  xxiii. 
15.  Acts,  ii.  10,  and  vi.  5,  and  xiii.  43.  But  nothing  is 
here  said  respecting  their  mode  of  admission.  If  it  then 
prevailed,  why  no  mention  of  it  in  the  baptisms  of  John, 
of  Christ,  and  the  Apostles  ? 

3.  Gill,  in  his  dissertation  on  this  subject,  shows  that 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  proselyte  baptism,  by  any 
authors  who  wrote  before  the  days  of  Christ,  nor  by  any, 
who  wrote  for  some  time  after  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 
It  is  not  mentioned  by  Philo,  the  Jew,  who  lived  in  the 
first  century ;  nor  in  the  rabbinical  books  of  this  time, 
nor  by  Josephus  who  wrote  a  little  after  Philo  ;  though 
he  treats  of  the  religious  ceremonies  and  customs  of 
the  Jews  and  speaks  of  many  Gentiles,  nay,  of  whole 
nations,  coming  over  to  Judaism;  and  speaks  of  their 
being  circumcised,  but  nothing  of  their  baptism.  He  par- 
ticularly mentions  Helena,  queen  of  Adiabone,  but  says 
nothing  of  her  baptism,  though  he  mentioned  the  circum- 
cision of  her  son,  nor  in  the  Chaldee  paraphrases,  nor 
in  the  Misnah,  or  book  of  Jewish  traditions,  nor  in  the 
commentaries  on  the  pentateuch  written,  A.  D.  300,  nor 
by  any  of  the  christian  fathers  of  the  tirst  thrc-a  or  four 
centuries. 

The  two  Talmuds,  the  Jerusalem  and  Babylonish, 
were  compiled,  the  first  about  A.  D.  230,  and  the  latter 
about  500.  The  last  was  abridged  by  Maimonedes  in 
A.  D.  1100.  The  authority  which  Wall  brings  from 
them  in  support  of  his  theory  is  of  such  a  doubtful  char- 
acter, that  to  it  I  would  make  no  reply. 

4.  Proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion  were  baptized 
when  admitted  into  the  christian  church.  There  were 
proselytes  among  the  three  thousand,  who  were  baptized 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  Eunuch  Avas  a  proselyte  j 
but  yet  he  was  baptized  when  he  embraced  Christianity. 
But  if  he  had  been  baptized  before,  would  not  this  look 
like  rebaptization  ? 

The  doctor  concludes  his  dissertation  then  with  boldly 
asserting,  after  the  most  minute  inquiry,  that  this  custom 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTER?.  33' 

of  baptizing"  children  was  so  far  from  being  common  in 
all  ag-es,  foregoing  the  times  of  John,  Christ,  and  his 
Apostles,  that  nol  a  single  instance  can  be  given  of  aay 
one  that  ever  was  then  baptized."  And  adds,  in  the 
words  of  Dr.  Owen,  "  that  the  opinion  of  some  learned 
men  concerning  transferring  the  rite  of  Jewish  baptism 
by  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  indeed  did  not  then  exist,  for 
the  use  of  his  disciples,  is  destitute  of  all  probability." 
To  these  names  I  could  add  those  of  Lardner,  Jennings, 
Buddeus,  Danzius,  and  many  others.  Whoever  wishes  to 
read  on  this  subject  may  consult  Gill  and  Innes.  In  p.  43, 
you  say,  "  As  he  particularized  baptism  and  that  only,  it 
is  Si  fair  conclusion  that  he  designed  that  circumcision  and 
sacrifice,  should  not  be  used  at  the  initiation  of  heathen 
into  the  Christian  church."  Here  you  tell  us,  that  the  si- 
lence of  Christ,  respecting  circumcision^  furnished  a  fair  con- 
clusion, that  he  meant  it  should  be  dropped.  This  is 
certainly  your  meaning,  as  will  appear  to  any  one,  who 
will  read  the  period  and  the  whole  paragraph.  Now  let 
us  turn  to  the  62ad  page.  Here  you  say,  "  When  Paul 
was  charged  with  denying  circumcision  to  the  children  of 
the  Jews,  Mr.  C.  wonders  why  he  did  not  exonerate  him- 
self by  saying,"  '  You  know  that  I  sprinkle  them  as  a  sub- 
stitute,' "and  brings  in  Dr.  Baldwin  to  help  him  wonder, 
and  to  help  him  out.  Suppose  the  Apostle  had  told  the 
Jews,  that  the  law  of  circumcision  was  abrogated,  and 
that  he  administered  baptism  in  its  place,  would  this  have 
satisfied  them  ?  They  were  accustomed  to  circumcise  and 
baptize  those  who  were  proselyted  to  their  religion.  When 
they  were  proselyted  to  Christianity,  and  they  knew  that 
baptism  was  a  rite  of  introduction  into  the  church,  they 
'would  naturally  infer^  till  they  xn-ere  taught  otherzvise^  that 
circumcision  would  also  be  used.'''' 

Here,  when  you  would  overthrow  my  reasoning,  you 
maintain,  that  from  the  silence  of  Christ  about  circum- 
cision, the  Jews  would  naturally  infer  that  he  meant  it 
should  be  continued  ;  but  in  page  43  you  maintain,  that 
the  silence  of  Christ,  about  circumcision  in  his  commission 
to  the  Apostles,  would  lead  them  "  fairly  to  conclude, 
that  he  meant  it  should  be  dropped.'"'  What  a  potent  argu- 
ment is  silence^  to  what  ditlerent  purposes  it  may  be 
turned?  I  wonder,  sir,  who  helped  you  into  this  deep 
contradiction,  and  I  wonder  who  will  help  you  out. 

Beside,  who  taught  the  Apostles,  previous  to  the  coun- 
cil at  Jesusalem,  "  to  do  othenvis^'^''  than  to  circ(jmcise  aad 


34  STRICTURES    ON   MR.    MOORE'S    REPLY 

baptize  their  converts  ?  And  how  happened  they  to  drop. 
this  rite,  when  they  had  a  natural  reason  to  infer  from 
the  silence  of  Christ,  that  he  meant  it  should  be  continu- 
ed ?  And  how  came  the  complaint  of  its  discontinuance 
to  arise  in  the  church?  Moreover,  if,  as  you  say,  the 
church  at  Jerusalem  would  naturally  infer,  that  Christ 
meant  that  both  circumcision  and  baptism  should  be  con- 
tinued, side  by  side,  when  did  Christ  teach  them  their 
mistake,  and  that  he  meant  they  should  substitute  the  lat- 
ter for  the  former  ? 

You  remark  that  the  Greek  word  in  the  commission  to 
teach,  '^  signifies,  to  convert,  to  proselyte,  to  disciple,  or 
make  disciples."  If  it  be  asked,  can  any  be  converted, 
or  be  made  disciples,  without  instruction,  or  without  acapa- 
bility  of  it  ?  We  reply,  it  seems  to  be  implied  in  what 
Peter  said  that  discipleship  extended  to  children.  Peter 
said,  "  why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of 
the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were  able 
to  bear?"  Acts  xv.  10.  This  is  your  seeming  proof  that 
infants  are  disciples,  or  that  persons  may  be  discipled 
without  instruction.  But  all  the  strength  of  your  argu- 
ment, and  at  best  it  has  but  little,  lies  in  the  meaning  of 
the  word  yoke.  Did  the  Apostle  mean  by  it,  circumci- 
sion simply  ?  Or  did  he  not  mean  the  whole  ritual  law  ? 
That  he  did  mean  the  ceremonial  law  is  the  opinion  of 
Scott,  Gill,  and  other  expositors. 

The  observance  of  this  law  formed  a  heavy  yoke.  By 
putting  the  yoke  on  the  neck,  is  meant  the  imposing  of 
the  obligation  to  observe  the  Mosaic  law.  Certainly 
then  the  Apostles  did  not  debate,  whether  it  were  duty 
to  impose  this  yoke,  this  obligation  to  keep  the  typical 
law,  on  helpless  infants.  In  order  to  retort  upon  me 
the  charge  of  inconsistency,  you  represent  me,  as  hold- 
ing that  John's  ministry  and  that  of  the  Apostles,  after 
the  resurrection,  formed  two  distinct  dispensations.  In  p. 
46,  you  quote  me  thus  :  Mr.  C.  "  by  way  of  inference 
from  the  preceding  dispensation,"  says,  "  under  these 
circumstances  the  Apostles  would  naturally  continue  to 
use  water  in  the  same  manner,  and  upon  the  same  sub- 
jects as  before."  '  Here  we  see  Mr.  C.  who  adheres  so 
closely  to  the  commission,  come  down  from  the  moun- 
tain where  it  was  given,  and  plunge  himself  in  Jordan,  to 
discover  what  is  the  mode,  and  who  are  the  proper  sub* 
jects  of  baptism.' 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  38 

Did  I,  sir,  consider  Johns's  ministry  as  forming  a  dispen- 
sation, distinct  from  that  of  the  Apostles  after  Christ's  as- 
cension ?  No,  sir,  you  have  twice  granted  before,  that  I 
viewed  John's  ministry  as  the  beginning  of  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. How  could  you  then  say  that  I  enforced  the 
mode  and  the  subject  of  baptism  from  John''s  ministry,  as 
from  a  preceding  and  separate  dispensation  ?  With  en- 
tire consistency  I  could  refer  back  to  the  ministry  of 
John,  and  not  argue  from  one  dispensation  to  another. 
I  am  sorry  to  see  so  much  evidence,  that  your  propensity 
to  wit  leads  you  to  violate  the  laws  of  candor.  Certainly 
the  above  remarks  "  come  with  great  infelicity"  from 
you,  after  your  concessions  and  formal  assurance,  that 
"  care  has  been  used  not  to  misrepresent  the  meaning  of 
the  author  of  the  Letters." 

In  the  last  paragraph  of  this  letter,  you  observe,  Mr.  C. 
^  first  takes  us  according  to  our  understanding  of  the 
commission,  as  it  is  recorded  by  Matthew,  and  says,  we 
are  sanguine  that  it  embraces  infants.  He  then  takes  us 
according  to  our  understanding  of  a  part  of  the  commis- 
sion, as  it  was  recorded  by  Mark,  and  says,  we  seem  to  be 
equally  sure  that  it  doth  not  embrace  them.  Because 
we  say,  that  infant  baptism  appears  to  be  contained  in  the 
commission  *as  penned  by  one  evangelist,  and  that  it  does 
not  appear  to  be  contained  in  a  detached  part  of  the  com- 
mission as  it  is  penned  by  another  evangelist,  he  repre- 
sent us  grossly  inconsistent,  and  contradicting  ourselves.'* 

The  detached  part  of  the  commission,  to  which  you  here 
allude  is  this  :  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be 
saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not,"  &c.  In  this  detached 
part  of  the  commission,  as  recorded  by  Mark,  you  grant 
that  infant  baptism  "  does  not  appear  to  be  contained,"  but 
3'qu  suppose  it  is  contained  in  the  other  part  of  the  commis- 
sion, for  the  commissions  in  Matthew  and  Mark  "are  notcon- 
trariant."  Let  us  then  quote  the  other  part  of  Mark's  com- 
mission, that  the  reader  may  see,  whether  infant  baptism  is 
contained  in  this  part.  *'Goye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature."  This  is  the  other  part  of 
the  commission  in  which  you  maintain  that  infant  baptism  is 
to  be  found.  Here  is  a  command  to  preach  the  gospel  to  ev- 
ery creature.  You  will,  1  presume,  go  with  me  some  distance 
in  limiting  the  phrase,  every  creature.  You  will  not  say  that 
Christ  meant  to  command  the  Apostles  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  babes,  or  to  the  deaf  and  insane.  If  you  say  that  the  com- 
mand to  preach  the  gospel  be  limited  to  adults  and  those 


36  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORe's    REPLt 

capable  of  hearing  it,  then  you  must  show,  how  the  coi>v 
mand  to  preach  the  gospel  to  a  specified  class  of  beings,  18 
at  the  same  time  a  command  to  baptize  a  different  and  un- 
specified class  of  beings.  But  though  you  laboured  so 
long  to  prove  that  infant  baptism  is  contained  in  the  com- 
mission, yet  after  all,  do  you  not  mean  to  maintain  that  it 
is  not  contained  ?  AVhat  was  in  familiar  use  about  bap- 
tism, ''  needed  not  to  be  specifically  contained  in  the  coni' 
mission.^'  Your  meaning  is  certainly  this :  that  as  the 
Apostles  had  been  accustomed  to  see  proselytes  and  their 
infants  baptized,  when  taken  into  the  Jewish  church,  this 
well  known  custom  was  a  sufficient  guide ;  therefore  in- 
fant baptism  needed  not  to  be  specified  in  the  commission. 
If  I  understand  you,  you  mean  to  support  infant  baptism, 
not  because  it  is  contained  in  the  commission,  but  because 
it  is  not  prohibited.  It  is  because  Christ  is  perfectly 
silent  on  this  subject,  because  he  particularizes  nothing 
in  respect  to  subject,  whether  adult  or  infant ;  from  all 
this  silence  you  conclude,  that  Christ  meant  we  should 
baptize  infants.  You  illustrate  yourself  by  an  appeal  to 
the  conduct  of  legislators.  So  you  maintain  that  the  law 
of  infant  baptism  was  in  force  before  the  commission  was 
issued,  and  as  Christ  in  it  was  perfectly  silent  respecting 
the  repeal  of  this  previous  law,  the  conclusion  is  fair  that 
he  meant  it  should  remain.  The  utter  silence  of  Christ 
in  this  commission  about  infant  baptism  is  your  argument 
in  favour  of  its  perpetuity.  After  all,  then,  doth  it  not  ap- 
pear that  you  agree  with  the  Baptists,  that  infant  bap- 
tism is  not  contained  in  tlie  apostolic  commission  ? 

Remarking  on  the  Jailer,  you  say,  "  Whatever  this  sal- 
vation was,  which  was  promised  to  his  house,  it  was  to 
Gome  upon  them  in  consequence  of  his  faith."  This  is 
a  very  extraordinary  expression.  You  are  in  this  opinion,  I 
believe,  quite  alone.  No  commentator  that  I  have  ever 
consulted  agrees  with  you.  I  had  supposed  that  Pedobap- 
tists  maintain  that  converting  grace  comes  on  their  child- 
ren to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  consequence  of  their 
fidelity  in  fulfilling  the  conditions  of  a  peculiar  covenant, 
existing  between  them  and  God  in  relation  to  their  child- 
ren ;  and  not  that  their  children  are  to  be  saved  in  con- 
sequence of  their  common  faith  in  Christ.  The  jailer  in 
exhorted  to  believe  in  Christ,  and  not  in  this  particular 
covenant,  and  this  his  faith  in  Christ,  you  say,  was  to  save 
his  family.  If  this  be  true,  then  the  children  of  be- 
ireving  Baptists  in  Christ  are  as  sure  of  salvation  as  those 


TO   THE   FOREGOING   LETTERS.  o7 

of  Pedobaptists.  "If,"  say  you,  "  it  be  admitted  Ac  re-, 
joiced  and  believed  with  all  his  house,  it  docs  not  follow, 
that  they  rejoiced  and  believed  xs^ith  him.  But  a  short  time 
ago  Mr.  C.  believed  -xith  the  people  of  his  charge,  that 
immersion  of  believers  was  the  only  christian  baptism. 
But  they  did  not  believe  the  same  with  him.  He  rejoic- 
ed "izith  them  at  the  new  light,  which  was  poured  in  upon 
his  mind.  But  they  wept  -mth  him."  This  wit,  sir,  may 
tickle  the  ears  of  superficial  readers,  but  it  will  carry  no 
conviction  to  the  honest  inquirer  after  truth.  Are  you 
satisfied  of  this  childish  quibble  ?  Will  you  say  the  word 
"Biith.,  in  the  following  passages  expresses  a  union  in  spot^ 
but  no  similarity  of  feeling  ?  "  Remember  them  that  are 
in  bonds,  as  bound  -with  them.  Rejoice  with  them,  that 
do  rejoice,  and  weep  '<jDith  them  that  weep.  Rejoice  is)ith 
me,  for  I  have  found  the  piece,  which  was  lost.  Whether 
one  member  suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it ;  or  if 
one  member  be  honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it." 
Does  the  word  -anth  in  all  these  places  express  a  union 
of  spot,  or  a  union  of  joy  and  sorrow  ? 

You  express  your  belief,  that  there  were  no  males 
present  when  Ljdia  was  converted.  Hence  you  infer 
that  the  brethren,  whom  Paul  found  in  her  house,  were 
not  members  of  her  family,  when  she  was  baptized. 
That  there  were  men,  who  assembled  at  that  place  of 
worship  is  highl}^  probable.  Mr.  Scott  says,  "  It  seems 
that  the  Jews,  in  this  city,  had  no  synagogue  with  rulers  ; 
but  there  was  a  small  oratory  without  the  city  by  the 
river's  side,  where  a  few  people  were  accustomed  to 
assemble  for  the  worship  of  God  on  the  Sabbath  day." 
To  this  house  Paul  and  Silas  resorted  on  tlie  Sabbath  da}^, 
probably  to  have  an  opportunity  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
the  Jew^s,  who  might  then  assemble.  It  seems  that  before 
public  service  commenced,  they  sat  down  and  conversed 
on  religious  subjects  in  a  free  manner  with  some  women, 
who  had  early  convened.  Without  doubt  this  house  of 
prayer  was  built  for  the  united  public  worship  of  both 
sexes.  Will  you  say  that  these  public  services  were  to 
be  conducted  wholly  by  female  speakers  ? 

In  page  51  you  say,  if  it  be  improbable  that  Lydia  had 
young  children  with  her,  "  it  is  not  improbable  she  might 
take  servants  with  her,  who  composed  her  household." 
The  word  doulos,  servant,  when  it  is  used  as  the  correlate 
to  master,  means  the  same  as  slave.  Such  slaves  then 
N 


38  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORe's    REPLY 

existed  both  among  Jews  and  Gentiles,       To  such  Paul 
says,  "  art  ihou  called,  being  a  servant?  care  not  for  it; 
but  if  thou  majest  be  made  free   use  it  rather."     Christ 
asks,    "  V  hicli  of  3^ou   having  a  servant  ploughing,  &;c. 
Servants,   be   obedient  to  them   that  are  your   masters." 
1  Cor.  vii.  f^l,  Luke  xvii.  7,  Eph.  vi.  5.     Such  were  the 
servants  of  Ljdia,  if  she  possessed  any.     These  servants, 
you  maintain,  Paul  would   have   baptized  solely   on  the 
ground   of  her   faith.     Here   then  you  exhibit  Paul  as 
teaching,   that  converted  masters  ought  to  bring  to  bap- 
tism  all  their  unconverted  servants,  or  slaves.     It  seems 
then,   that  the  free  spirit  of  the  gospel  was  no  objection 
in  the  Apostle's  mind  against  the   baptism  of  slaves  on 
their  master's  faith.     But  in  the  63d  page,  you  maintain, 
that  christian  masters   ought  not  to  bring  their  slaves  to 
baptism,  because  "  the  slave   trade  and  the   holding  of 
slaves  are"  not  "  agreeable  to  the  laws   and   regulations 
of  Christ."     How  then   happened  Paul   to  cherish   an 
opinion,  so   hostile  to  the  very  genius  of  the   gospel,  as 
to  be  willing  to  baptize   all   the  servants  of  Lydia,  and 
thus  to  sanction  their  bondage  ?    Did  he  not  understand 
the  nature  of  Christ's  religion  as  well  as  yourself?    If  he 
were  now  on  the  earth,  would  he  contradict  the  proprie- 
ty of  his  ancient  practice,  and  forbid  believing  masters  to 
bring  their  slaves  to  this  ordinance,  but  command  them  to 
manumit  all  their  servants,  because  their  slavery  was  a- 
gainst  the  laws  and  regulations  of  Christ  ?    How  can  it  be 
wrong  to  baptize  servants  now^  on  the  profession  of  their 
holders,  if  such  a  practice  were  right  in  the  days  of  Paul? 
The  nature  of  the  gospel,  and  the   laws   and  regulations 
of  Christ,   have  suffered  no  change.     I  had  said  that  if 
Pedobaptism   should    universally  prevail,  then  the  com- 
mission must  be  read  in  this  reversed  order  :     He  that  is 
baptized  and  belicveth  after  his  baptism   shall  be  saved. 
To  this  you  reply,   "  If  this  serious  difficulty  should  oc- 
cur,  they  might  recite,  without  reversing  their  order, 
these  words  :  ''  Except  a   man  be  born  of  rvater  and   of 
the  spirit,  he   cannot  enter  into  the   kingdom  of  God," 
and  "  they  will  answer  just  as  well."     For  what  will  it 
answer  just  as  well  ?     Not  to  support,  but  to   ruin  your 
ivhole  Pedobaptist  theory.     For  in   these  words  Christ 
makes  evidence    of  the    spiritual  birth  essential  for  en- 
trance into  the  kingdom  of  God,     But  in  direct  opposition 
to  this  you  maintain,  that  it  what  you  deem  to  be  truth, 
were  universally  believed  and  loved,  then  all  parents 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  39 

would  bring  their  infants  to  baptism,  and  consequently, 
that  every  addition  to  the  visible  kingdom  of  God  ought 
to  be  of  those,  who,  on  account  of  age,  could  give  no  evi- 
dence, that  they  had  been  born  of  the  spirit.  If  then 
your  plan  were  carried  out,  the  difference  between  you 
and  Christ  would  be  this  :  Our  Saviour  says,  "  Except  a 
man  be  born  of  the  spirit^  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God."  No  one  should  enter  this  kingdom  without  ev- 
idence of  this  birth.  But  you  believe  that  were  it  not 
for  the  error  of  some,  and  the  unbelief  of  others,  all 
would  and  ought  to  be  united,  or  annexed  to  Ihis  king- 
dom without  any  evidence,  that  they  have  been  born  of 
the  spirit. 

In  your  fifteenth  letter,  page  56,  j'ou  grant,  that  the 
primary  and  most  important  design  of  circumcision  was  to 
show  the  want  of  a  new  heart,  and  not  its  actual  posses- 
sion. Its  principal  use  was  typical.  Now  if  infant  sprink- 
ling be  its  substitute,  then  the  primary  and  most  impor- 
tant use  of  this  ceremony  must  be  typical.  You  say, 
''  When  it  is  applied  to  infants,  it  signifies,  that  they  need 
the  sanctifying  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  To  con- 
sider baptism  as  typical,  I  must  view  as  a  great  error. 
One  grand  difference  between  the  ceremonies  of  the  two 
dispensations,  I  conceive  to  be  this  :  those  of  the  former 
were  shadows  of  good  things  to  come;  but  those  of  the 
latter,  signs  of  good  things  already  come.  You  remark, 
when  it  is  applied  to  adults,  it  is  a  sign,  that  they  have 
been  purified.  But  where  can  you  find  proof  that  bap- 
tism is  a  sign  of  present  good,  and  also  the  shadoiv  of  future 
good  ?  ''  Baptism,"  say  you,  "  is  a  seal  or  token  on  the 
part  of  believers,  that  they  have  faith  in  Christ.  When 
they  cohsecrate  themselves,  or  their  offspring  to  God  in 
baptism,  this  act  is  an  expression  or  token  of  their  belief 
in  him,  who  has  promised  ;  and  a  seal  which  they  set  to 
the  covenant  into  which  they  have  entered,  that  they 
will  fulfil  all  their  covenant  engagements.  On  the  part 
of  God,  it  is  a  seal,  or  pledge  of  the  same  covenant  that 
lie  will  fulfil  the  promises,  which  he  has  made  to 
them  and  to  their  children."  These  lines  without  doubt 
contain  the  stamina  of  your  whole  system,  when  you  rea- 
son from  circumcision.  But  as  these  are  round  asser- 
tions, unsustained  by  any  scripture  proof,  I  conclude,  that 
your  want  of  time,  and  your  intention  to  publish  on  this 
subject,  moved  you  to  reserve  your  support  of  them  to 
appear  in  your  promised  treatise.     So  that  I  shall  look 


40  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE'S    REPLY 

to  find  substantial  evidence  to  vindicate  the  opinion,  that 
infant-sprinkling  is  the  sign  or  seal  of  a  solemn  vow  or 
promise,  both  on  the  part  of  God  and  on  that  of  parents, 
respecting  their  children.  This  supposed  design  of  in- 
fant baptism,  you  never  fail  to  state  and  press  as  one  of 
the  most  powerful  arguments  to  enforce  on  parents  and 
their  baptized  children  the  performance  of  their  recip- 
rocal duties.  If  the  children  of  professors  are  notorious 
for  their  impiety,  the  conclusion  is,  that  their  parents 
have  failed  to  fulfil  their  vows.  For  you  maintain  that  if 
the  conditions  of  the  covenant  are  kept,  then  "  thej'-  will 
receive  the  promises."  Hence  when  the  children  of  be- 
lievers are  distinguished  for  their  piety,  the  inference  is, 
that  baptismal  vows  have  been  faithfully  observed.  Do 
you  not  frequently  in  your  prayers  and  exhortations,  re^ 
mind  parents,  that  the  vows  they  make  at  the  font  in  fa- 
vour of  their  children,  are  solemn  and  of  the  highest  mo- 
ment, and  that  fidelity  on  their  part  will  save  their  pos- 
terity, while  a  breach  of  covenant  will  expose  them  to 
endless  ruin.  And  when  you  expostulate  with  these  chil- 
dren, do  you  ever  fail  to  tell  them,  that  they  were  conse- 
crated to  God  in  their  infancy,  and  brought  under  the 
covenant  which  they  are  now  bound  to  acknowledge  by 
their  own  public  profession,  and  if  they  refuse,  they  are 
exposed  to  the  pains  of  excision  from  the  people  of  God. 
Pedobaptism  in  your  view  and  in  that  of  your  brethren  is 
the  most  popular  and  powerful  argument  to  enforce  the 
relative  duties  of  parents  and  children.  Now  if  the  apos- 
tles had  the  same  view  of  baptism,  it  is  utterly  unac- 
countable, that  they  never  on  any  occasion  should  have 
employed  it  for  the  same  practical  purposes.  The  apos- 
tle Paul  was  a  man  of  rare  powers,  and  had  a  mind  high- 
ly enriched  and  embellished  with  science  and  literature. 
He  was  master  of  the  various  topics  which  he  discussed. 
He  displayed  much  adroitness,  in  availing  himself  of  the 
most  natural  and  popular  arguments  in  his  favour.  Why 
did  he  and  all  the  rest,  while  inculcating  the  mutual 
duties  of  parents  and  their  children,  omit,  at  all  times,  to 
mention  the  oath  of  parents  and  the  dedication  of  children 
hy  the  sacred  rite  of  baptism  ? 

The  inspired  penmen  were  conscious  that  they  were 
writing  for  posterity,  and  that  the  sacred  Canon  was  de- 
signed to  form  a  complete  body  of  theoretical  and  prac- 
tical divinity  for  the  guidance  of  all  future  generations. 
If  then  Pedobaptism  held  in  their  view,  as  conspicuous  a 
place  in  religious  education,  as  it  does  in  the  view  of  its 


TO   THE   FOREGOING   LETTER?.  41 

modern  advocates,  they  without  doubt  would  have  given 
it  a  prominent  place  among  the  appropriate  arguments  to 
persuade  parents  to  train  up  their  children  in  the  nurture 
and  admonition  of  the  Lord.     But  on  this  argument  they 
preserve  a  profound  silence  throughout  all  their  writing*. 
If,  as  some  say,  there  were  no  reasons  for  a  particular 
command    for  infant  baptism,  yet  it  is  truly  surprising, 
that   they  should  never  on  any  occasion  have  mentioned 
it  incidentally  for  the  purpose  of  argument  and  illustra- 
tion.      They  informed    believers   that  they   had  been 
buried  and  raised  with  Christ  in  baptism,  and  hence  they 
encouraged  their  hope  of  the  future  resurrection  of  their 
bodies.      They  assured  believers,  that  they  had  been 
buried  with  Christ  by  baptism.     Hence  they  urged  upon 
them  their  obligations  to  walk  in  newness  of  life.     If  any, 
after  he  had  symbolically  put  oS  and  buried  the  old  man 
of  sin  in    the   watery  grave,   apostatized,  he  should  be 
viewed  as  an  apparition,  or  ghost,  who  had  risen  from  the 
dead,  to  mingle  again  with  the  wicked  world.     Paul  rea- 
sons from  baptism,  when  he  reproved  the  disorderly  walk 
of  professors,  who  by  that  rite  had  engaged  to  lead  a  god- 
iy  life.     But  where  has  he  ever  employed  Pedobaptism 
in  administering  reproof  or  commendation  to  professing 
parents  for  their  neglect  or  fidehty  in  the  religious  edu- 
cation of  their  children  ?  He  exhorts  parents  to  be  faith- 
ful to  their  offspring  ;   but  he  never  enforces  his  exhor- 
tation by  reminding  them  of  their  baptismal  vows.     And 
he  often  exhorts  children  to  be  obedient  to  their  parents 
and  to  early  repentance  ;  but  he  never  gathers  arguments 
from  their  infant  sprinkling  to  enforce  his  exhortations. 
Now,  sir,  peruse  the  treatises,  the  sermons  and  addresses 
of  modern  Pedobaptists  on  religious  education,  and  you 
will  find,  that  infant  baptism  holds  the  first  rank  in   all 
their  arguments  to    enforce   parental    and   filial   duties. 
But  consult  the  inspired  penmen  on  this  same  subject,  and 
you  will  find  that  they  are  perfect  strangers  to  arguments 
of  this  kind.     In  the  sacred  records  the  duties  and  advan- 
tages of  baptism  are  exclusively  confined  to  adult  believ- 
ers.    But  in  the   writings  of  the  moderns,  its  advantages 
are  almost  wholly  confined  to  infants  and  children.    This 
difference  in  the  practical  uses  of  baptism  between  the 
Apostles  and  our  opponents,  is  perfectly  unaccountable, 
unless  we  grant  that  their  views  of  the  nature  and  design 
of  this  ordinance  are  correspondingly  different. 

I  aiD>  &.c> 


STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE'S    REPLY 


LETTER  IX. 

Rev.  and  dear  Sir, 

In  your  sixteenth  letter  you  criticise  my  reasoninofs  on 
various  passages  of  scripture,  which  have  been  viewed 
as  favouriDg  Pedobaptism. 

I  shall  pass  a  number  of  texts,  and  beg-in  with  your  ob- 
servations on  1  Cor.  vii.  14,  "For  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  the  Avife  ;  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were  your  children  un- 
clean, but  now  are  they  holy." 

On  my  exposition  of  this  verse,  you  remark,  "  Let 
him  produce  another  instance  in  the  scriptures,  in  which 
sanctified  and  holj'^  are  used  to  express  legitimacy^  and  we 
will  grant  there  is  some  plausibility,  for  his  interpreta- 
tion." Your  own  comment,  sir,  on  this  text  furnishes  au- 
thority to  say,  that  to  sanctify,  means  in  this  text,  the 
same  as  to  legitimate,  or  to  make  lawful.  Your  expo- 
sition of  this  verse  is  this  :  "  For  the  unbelieving  husband 
is  sanctified  to  (en)  the  wife  ;  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  to  (en)  the  husband  ;  that  is,  these  unbeliev- 
ers are  set  apart  to  their  believing  partners,  agreeably  to 
the  original  institution  of  marriage."  The  verb,  to  le- 
j^iiimaie,  means,  according  to  Johnson,  to  make  lawful. 
The  unbelieving  wife,  you  justly  say,  is  sanctified  to  the 
husband,  i.  e.  she  is,  according  to  the  original  institution 
of  marriage,  rendered  lawful  to  be  possessed  in  the  connu- 
bial state.  From  this  sanctified  or  legitimated  marriage 
proceeds  the  holiness  of  the  children  of  such  wedlock. 
According  to  you,  sir,  this  matrimonial  legitimacy  pro- 
duces religious^  or  ceremonial  sanctity.  If  so,  then  infant 
baptism  is  founded  upon  the  sanctification  of  marriage, 
and  all  the  children  of  Pagans,  begotten  in  holy  wedlock, 
are  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance. 

At  Corinth  there  were  some,  who  doubted  the  pro- 
priety of  marriage  under  any  circumstances.  They 
doubted,  whether  it  were  proper  for  the  unmarried  to 
enter  wedlock,  and  whether  it  were  proper  to  ci>ntinue 
in  it,  even  when  602:/*  parties  were  believers.  Their 
scruples  were  not  confined  to  the  propriety  of  the  co- 
habitation of  a  believer  and  unbeliever.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  they  had  any  allusion  to  the  prohibition  of 
marriage,  between  Jews  and  Pagans,  in  Exod.  xxxiv.  16. 
and  Ezra  x,  3.  But  it  appears,  as  ScQtt  gn  the  place j  says, 


TO  THE  FOFEGOING  LETTERS.  43 

that  "Some  of  them  pleaded  for  the  lawfuhiess  offorni- 
c'ation  ;  others  seem  to  have  imuihed  the  sentiments  of 
the  Pylhag-oriaus,  and  'to  have  deemed  ?iiarriag'a,  itself, 
inconsistent  with  christian  purity,  or  at  least  inimical  to 
intellectual  improvement."*  It  seems  that  they  wrote  to 
the  Apostle  to  have  him  solve  this  general  question  : 
whether  marriage  under  any  circumstances  was  consis- 
tent with  that  purity  of  life  and  intellectual  improve- 
ment, which  ought  to  be  sought  by  every  pious  individu- 
al. On  this  question  the  Apostle  kept  his  eye,  and  to  it 
he  meant  to  give  a  direct  answer.  In  doing  which  he 
first  took  up  the  case  of  the  unmarried,  and  granted  that 
for  those,  who  had  tli€  gift  of  continency,  it  was  best  to 
remain  in  a  single  state.  But  those,  who  had  not  this  gift, 
he  exhorted  to  marry,  to  escape  temptations  to  lewdness. 
He  then  took  up  the  case  of  the  married,  where  both 
parties  were  believers  ;  and  exhorted  the  wife  not  to 
part  from  her  husband,  and  the  husband  not  to  put  away 
his  wife.  See  ver.  10,  11.  He  next  went  to  the  case, 
where  the  parties  were  unequally  yoked  ;  one  a  believ- 
er, the  other  an  unbeliever.  Neither  did  he  allow  these 
to  part,  and  violate  the  marriage  vow.  They  doubted 
the  propriety  of  continuing  in  marriage,  not  simply  on 
account  of  the  opposition  in  their  religion,  but  for  the 
same  reasons,  which  led  two  believers  to  doubt,  whether 
they  should  remain  together.  They  did  not  doubt  but  the 
ceremony  of  marriage  had  been  correctly  performed,  nor 
whether  their  marriage  were  agreeable  to  the  laws  of 
their  country ;  but  whether  marriage  at  any  time  and  un- 
der any  circumstances  was  consistent  with  great  purity  of 
life.  That  this  was  their  question  appears  from  Paul's  an- 
swer. A*fter  exhorting  them  to  remain  together,  he  gave 
his  reason  why  they  should.  "  For  the  unbelieving  hus- 
band is  sanctified  by  the  wife ;  and  the  unbelieving  wife 
is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holv."  Their  being"  thus  set 
apart  or  sanctified  for  each  others  matrimonial  use  at  the 
time  of  their  marriage,  is  the  reason,  which  Paul  gives, 
why  they  should  still  cohabit.  But  what  does  this 
prove  ?  Simply  this,  that  marriage  was  consistent  with 
purity  of  life,  and  that  the  Pythagorian  philosophy, 
which  they  had  imbibed,  was,  in  this  particular,  incor- 
rect. And  this  was  just  what  they  wished  to  know,  and 
the  reasoning  of  Paul  exactly  met  their  question.  But 
if  their  question  were  simply,  whether  a  christian  and 


44  S.TIlICTUaES   ON   MR.    MOORE^S   REPLY 

an  idolater  should  live  together  in  the  connubial  state  ; 
then  Paul's  reply  would  have  been  irrelative.  This  may 
be  illustrated.  Suppose  in  the  days  of  Ezra,  a  /etsy,  who 
had  a  Pagan  wife,  had  come  to  the  high  priest,  and  asked 
him,  whether  his  continuance  with  his  companion  were 
consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  nation.  But  the  priest 
in  answer  goes  on  to  prove  that  in  Pagan  countries, 
when  a  Pagan  marries  a  Pagan,  they  are  mutually  set 
apart,  or  sanctified  for  each  other's  use,  agreeably  to  the 
original  institution  of  marriage,  and  therefore  marriage 
among  them  was  consistent  with  the  laws  of  purity. 
Would  noM;  the  Jew  have  said  to  him,  "  your  answer,  sir, 
does  not  apply  to  my  case.  I  do  not  doubt  all  that  you 
have  said  respecting  the  propriety  of  marriage  among 
Pagans^  but  I  wish  to  know,  whether  the  Jewish  laws 
will  allow  me  to  retain  my  Pagan  companion  ?"  If  then 
the  question  v/hich  these  persons  put  to  Paul  were  vir- 
tually the  same  with  that  of  the  above  Jew,  then  the 
answer,  which  he  gave  them,  would  have  been  as  wide 
from  the  point,  as  that  of  the  high  priest.  But  if  we 
take  their  question  to  be,  whether  marriage  under  any 
circumstances  was  proper,  then  the  Apostle's  answer  is 
direct  and  satisfactory.  It  was  virtually  this  :  you  need 
not  scruple  the  propriety  of  continuing  together,  be- 
cause, when  you  were  first  united,  you  were  then  set 
apart  or  sanctified  for  each  other,  agreeable  to  the  di- 
vine and  original  institution  of  marriage.  But  if  it  were 
net  so,  i.  e.  if  your  opinion  respecting  the  lawfulness  of 
marriage  in  any  state  is  correct,  then  it  would  follow  that 
all  your  children,  v.^hether  begotten  before  or  since  one 
of  you  have  been  converted,  would  be  unclean,  or  illegit- 
imate ;  but  now,  seeing  your  marriage  all  along  from 
your  day  ol'  espousals  has  been  proper  or  lawful,  your 
children  are  holy,  or  begotten  in  lawful  wedlock.  The 
more  this  text  is  examined,  the  less  aid  will  it  afford 
Pedobaptism.  It  was  once  one  of  my  main  pillars.  But 
after  reasoning  upon  it  in  a  great  variety  of  ways  to  make 
it,  if  possible,  conclude  in  my  favour,  I  was  obliged  to 
leave  it  out  of  the  debate,  as  affording  me  no  support. 

1  will  conclude  in  the  words  of  Musculus.  ^'  Formerly 
I  have  abused  this  place  against  the  Baptists,  thinking 
the  meaning  was,  that  the  children  were  holy  for  their 
parents'  faith,  which  the  present  place  makes  nothing 
for  the  purpose.  And  I  hope  that  upon  reading  this,  that 
every  one  that  has  abused  it  to  such  a  purpose  will  make. 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  45 

the  like  acknowledgments;  for  I  am  sure  they' ought." 
You  seem  to  imagine,  that  my  opinion,  that  the  good 
olive  tree  was  a  symbol  of  Christ,  is  attended  with  diffi- 
culties and  inconsistencies.  According  to  my  theory, 
Tou  say,  the  unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  oif  from 
Christ.  You  ask,  ''Were  these  deniers,  these  persecu- 
tors of  Christ,  ever  united  with  him  ?  If  they  were  unit- 
ed with  him,  it  was  either  spiritually,  or  professionally. 
He  will  not  say,  that  unbelievers  were  united  with  him 
by  faith.  Neither  will  he  say  that  they,  who  denied 
him,  professed  his  name.  How  then  were  they  united 
with  him  ?  If  they  were  not  united  with  him,  how  could 
they  be  broken  otl? — Let  it  be  admitted  that  the  olive 
tree  represents  the^Jewish  church,  and  these  difficulties 
vanish."  I  would  just  observe,  that  I  do  not  see  any 
particular  difficulty  in  accounting  lor  the  removal  of  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  whether  we  consider  them,  as  stand- 
ing merely  by  profession  in  Christ,  or  in  the  Jewish 
church.  But  we  wish  the  reader  to  notice  that  your 
reasonings  against  my  views  of  the  olive  tree,  apply 
with  all  their  point  against  yourself  Permit  me,  in  my 
turn  to  ask,  how  were  these  unbelieving  Jews  united  to 
the  church?  and  from  what  were  they  broken  off? 
Upon  your  theory,  they  were  broken  off  from  the  church 
of  God.  Were  then  these  deniers,  these  persecutors  of 
Christ,  ever  united  with  his  church  ?  If  they  were  unit- 
ed with  the  church,  it  was  either  spiritually,  or  profes- 
sionally. You  will  not  say,  that  unbelievers  were  united 
with  the  church  by  faiih.  How  then  were  they  united 
with  the  church?  If  they  were  not  united  with  the 
church,  how  then  could  they  be  broken  off?  If  you  will 
answer  these  questions,  we  shall  be  able  to  answer  yours. 
After  you  had  given  a  description  of  the  kingdom  of  a 
certain  prince,  and  of  an  invasion  of  his  dominions,  and  of 
the  enrolment  of  his  subjects,  you  say,  "  this  kingdom  is 
the  church  ;  these  little  ones,  enrolled  for  discipline,  for 
future  service,  are  children,  consecrated  to  God  by  bap- 
tism. In  them  we  behold  miniatures  of  a  future  soldiery, 
who  will  quit  themselves  like  men  under  the  Captain  of 
their  salvation." 

The  word  miniature,  means  a  representation  in  a  small 
compass,  less  than  the  reality-.  Do  you  then  see  in  these 
little  infants  and  children,  little  friends  to  God  ?  little 
saints,  little  soldiers  d$,  the  cross  ?  who  have  that  love 
to  Christ  and  to  his  kingdom,  which  will   move  them,  a?? 


4G  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORE's    REPLY 

soon  as  they  can  wield  the  weapons  of  the  spiritual  armorj, 
to  join  "  the  sacramental  hosts  of  God's"  elect,  to  fight  the 
battles  of  the  Lord  ?  Do  you  not  at  other  times  tell  them, 
that  they  are  the  children  of  wrath,  that  they  come  into 
the  world  with  a  propensity  to  sin,  which,  if  grace  do  not 
prevent,  will  soon  disclose  itself  in  open  hostility  to  the 
righteous  government  of  God  ?  Do  you  not  exhort  them 
to  cease  from  their  rebellion,  lest,  by  delay,  they  provoke 
this  Prince  of  peace,  and  they  perish  from  the  way,  when 
his  wrath  is  kindled  but  a  little  ?  Yet  these  children  are 
little  saints,  little  friends  to  Christ  and  to  his  cause. 

On  p.  67th  you  quote  me  thus,  "  that  Paul  did  not 
take  the  law  of  circumcision  for  his  guide  in  applying  the 
rite  of  baptism,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  required  a 
christian  believer  to  dispense  with  baptism  in  relation  to 
his  unbelieving  wife."  See  1  Cor.  vii.  12.  My  argument 
here  you  say  is  this :  "  parents  wer^  required  to  circum- 
cise their  male  children  and  servai;its."  These  words, 
sir,  you  must  have  known,  did  not  fully  state  my  argu- 
ment. Had  you  possessed  the  candolir  to  have  stated  it 
fairly,  you  would  have  found  no  room  to  amuse  yourself 
with  your  witty  inferences,  which  you  drew  from  prem- 
ises of  your  own  fabrication.  You  deal  in  this  place 
very  freely  in  points  of  exclamation.  But  I  see  nothing 
to  excite  surprise,  but  your  own  ungenerous  manage- 
ment. In  this  place  you  say,  "  The  law  of  circumcision 
was  explicit,  and  specified  maZes."  This  positive  law,  you 
contend,  will  not  grant  the  liberty  to  baptize  females. 
Tell  me  then,  will  you,  sir,  by  what  authority  you  sprin- 
kle ferPMle  infants  ?  For  them  you  cannot  plead  scrip- 
ture, example,  law,  or  precept.  Will  you  say  that  the 
proselyte  law  is  your  guide  in  baptizing  females,  but  the 
law  of  circumcision  your  guide  in  relation  to  males  ?  If 
so,  what,  after  all,  will  you  do  with  female  infants  of  Jew- 
ish parents  ?  You  cannot  say  the  baptism  of  such  Gen- 
tile children  will  authorize  you  to  baptize  Jewish  female 
children.  Because  you  inform  us,  that  the  baptism  of  a 
Gentile  woman  gave  no  license  to  baptize  a  Jewish  wo- 
man. Hence  you  sa}'^,  it  was  proper  that  Jewish  women 
should  be  particularly  mentioned^  as  having  a  right  to 
this  ordinance.  If  then  the  baptism  of  a  Gentile  woman 
will  not  justify  the  baptism  of  a  Jewish  woman,  neither 
will  the  baptism  of  a  female  Gentile  infant  justify  the  bap- 
tism of  Jewish  female  children.  If  you  were  now  invit- 
ed to  baptize  such  a  child,  would  you  comply  ?    And  by 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  47 

what  authority  would  you  proceed?  You  attach  great 
importance  to  your  supposed  proof,  that  John's  ministry 
and  baptism  did  not  belong  to  the  gospel  dispensation, 
which,  you  say,  did  not  begin  till  after  the  death  of  Christ. 
Your  principal  argument  is,  "  that  the  Jewish  ritual  con- 
tinued in  force  till  the  passion  of  Christ."  To  this  I  an- 
swer ;  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  the 
gradual  formation  of  the  gospel  church,  were  never  intend- 
ed to  infringe  the  regular  observance  of  the  ceremonial 
law,  till  the  crucifixion.  Mr.  Scott  says.  "  This  new 
dispensation  would  not  interfere  with  the  law  of  Moses." 
See  him  on  Luke  IGth.  This,  your  argument,  therefore, 
is  by  no  means  conclusive.  In  farther  proof  that  the  gos- 
pel dispensation  did  not  commence  till  the  death  of  Christ, 
you  adduce  these  words  :  "  the  kingdom  of  heaveir  is  at 
hand."  If  it  were  come^  you  think  such  language  would 
not  be  used.  But  this  argument  will  lose  its  force,  when 
we  reflect,  that  this  phrase  generally  expresses  an  event, 
as  very  near^  and  also  events  already  in  existence.  Hence, 
if  the  gospel  church  or  dispensation  did  not  commence 
exactly  at  the  opening  of  John's  ministry,  it  will  not  fol- 
low, that  it  did  not  begin  till  after  the  ascension.  You 
very  justly  remark,  that  in  your  quotations  and  observa- 
tions, it  is  immaterial  whether  we  take  the  words,  king- 
dom of  heaven,  to  mean  the  gospel  church,  or  the  gos- 
pel dispensation,  because  they  were  cotemporary.  If 
then  we  can  prove  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  existed 
during  the  ministry  of  John,  our  point  is  gained.  The 
first  text  which  we  shall  bring,  is  Matt.  xi.  12.  "And 
from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take 
it  by  forca."  But  how  could  it  suffer  violence  during 
this  specified?period,  if  it  had  no  existence  ?  Luke  xvi.  16. 
"  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John  :  since  that 
time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man 
presseth  into  it."  Matt,  xxiii.  13.  "  Wo  unto  you,  scribes 
and  Pharisees,  hypocrites,  for  ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  against  men;  for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves, 
neither  suffer  ye  them  that  are  entering  to  go  in." 
They  refused  to  go  in  themselves,  and  obstructed  the 
entrance  of  others.  But  how  could  they  shut  up  the 
doors  of  a  kingdom,  which  was  not  then  in  being  ?  See 
Matt.  xii.  28.  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto 
you."  But  how  could  it  come  nigh,  if  it  didnot  then  ex- 
ist?   See  Matt.  xxi.  31,  aad  43.  It  is  abundajj^^lj^  evident 


48  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORE  S    REPLY 

that  John  and  Christ  acted  in  harmony.  Christ  was  the 
bridegroom  and  John  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom.  The 
disciples  whom  they  collected,  formed  but  one  body  of 
visible  believers.  This  body  Christ  called  the  salt  of 
the  earth,  the  light  of  the  world,  a  city  set  on  an  hill. 
Between  this  body  and  the  Jewish  church,  there  was  no 
fellowship,  but  steady  opposition.  When  one  of  these 
brethren  was  oifended  bj^  another  brother,  he  was  direct- 
ed, as  the  last  resort,  ''  to  tell  it  to  the  church."  What 
church  ?  The  Jewish  church  with  their  high  priests  and 
rulers,  who  were  the  most  deadly  enemies  to  Christ  and 
his  followers  ?  ft  is  not  very  probable  that  he  would  di- 
rect them  to  lay  their  grievances  before  this  unfriendly 
tribunal.  Who  then  composed  this  church  ?  Mr.  Scott 
says  it  was  composed  of  "  the  teachers  and  professors  of 
the  gospel."  See  him  on  the  place.  Here  then  we  have 
pretty  strong  proof,  that  a  church  existed,  distinct  from 
that  of  the  Jews  and  before  the  death  of  Christ,  which 
formed  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal. 

Schluesner  says,  that  the  verb  engizd,  translated  is  at 
hand^  means,  in  some  cases,  an  event  already  come.  For 
instances  in  which  engike  is  used  to  express  time,  already 
Gome,  we  quote  Matt.  xxi.  34,  "And  when  the  time  of  the 
fruit,  {engizen)  drew  near,  he  sent,"  &c.  That  the  time 
of  gathering  fruit  had  actually  come^  is  evident  from  the 
parallel  texts  in  Mark  xii.  2,  &c.  and  Luke  xx.  10,  which 
see.  Mark  i.  15,  "  The  time  isfuljiUed^  and  the  kingdom 
of  God,  engiken^is  at  hand."  •  Here  the  phrase  is  at  hand, 
or  the  yerh  ,ingiken,  means,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  had 
actually  come.  Luke  x.  9  and  11,  "  The  kingdom  of  God 
engiken^  is  come  nigh  unto  you."  Who  can  doubt  but 
Christ  meant  to  assert,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  had  then 
actually  come,  and  that  the  peculiar  aggravation  of  the 
sin  of  those  inhabitants,  consisted  in  their  rejection  of  this 
kingdom  ? 

You  seem  to  rely  most  on  the  words,  ''  he  that  is  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  greater  than  he."  Hence 
you  infer,  that  John  was  not  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
l^  we  can  ascertain  the  two  things,  between  which  the 
comparison  is  m.ade,  we  shall  then  see  the  force  of  this 
argument.  Did  Christ  then  mean  to  make  a  comparison 
between  different  degrees  of  intellectual  power  ?  If  so, 
then  it  will  follow,  that  the  person  who  possesses  the 
weakest  mental  powers  in  the  christian  church  is  endow- 
ed with  greater  mental  powers  than  John.     This  no  one 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  49 

will  admit.  Is  the  comparison  between  different  degrees 
of  grace  or  holiness  in  the  soul?  Will  you  say  that  you 
have  the  least  share  of  grace  of  any  in  the  church,  and 
yet  maintain,  that  you  have  more  holiness,  than  the  har- 
binger of  Christ,  and,  in  this  respect,  are  greater  than 
John  ?  Is  the  comparison  between  different  degrees  of 
spiritual  light,  then  it  will  follow,  that  the  saint,  who 
now  has  the  most  obscure  and  limited  views  of  divine 
things,  has  more  knowledge  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  than 
John,  so  that  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  great 
er  than  he  !  No  one,  I  apprehend,  will  admit  that  John's 
views  of  divine  things  were  more  obscure,  than  are  the 
views  of  the  most  benighted  believer,  in  the  gospel 
church. 

But  if  the  comparison  lie  between  the  grace  of  humili- 
ty and  extraordinary  prophetic  endowments  and  honours^ 
we  shall  be  free  from  the  above  difficulties.  The  com- 
parison now  only  proves,  that  while  John  in  his  prophet- 
ic office  and  honours  in  pointing  out  and  baptizing  the 
Lamb  of  God,  was  greater  than  any  of  his  predecessors  ; 
yet  that  man  who  has  the  graces  of  humility  and  meek- 
ness, and  thinks  himself  the  least,  the  most  unv/orthy  ;  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  more  highly  favoured  and 
honored  than  John,  so  far  as  his  prophetical  office  and 
honors  were  concerned.  This  will  not  prove  that  he  was 
out  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  destitute  of  humility. 
It  only  proves  that  grace  in  the  soul  is  more  honorable 
and  important  than  prophetic  light  and  external  honors. 
The  view  that  we  have  taken  of  this  passage  is,  as  we 
believe,  supported  by  Matt,  xviii.  4.  "  Whosoever  there- 
fore humbleth  himself  as  this  little  child,  the  same  is  the 
greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  "As  this  is  the  spirit 
of  the  kingdom,  they  who  are  most  lowly  and  indifferent 
about  consequence  and  preeminence,  and  most  willing  to 
be  little,  inferior,  and  neglected,  must  be  the  greatest; 
and  not  they  who  have  the  greatest  abilities,  most  splen- 
did gifts,  or  most  exalted  stations  in  the  church."  See 
Scott  on  the  verse.     See  Luke  ix.  48. 

John  had  correct  and  pretty  enlarged  views  of  the  gos- 
pel. He  understood  the  design  of  Christ's  advent,  and  the 
vicarious  character  of  his  sufferings  and  death.  "  Behold, 
saith  he,  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world."  He  understood  the  difference  between  the 
two  dispensations.  "  The  law  was  given  by  Moses,  but 
grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus  Christ."  He  had  an  en- 
O 


50  STRICTURES   ON    MR.    MOORE'S   REPLV 

larged  views  of  the  rising  glories  of  Chris!  and  his  king- 
dom. See  John,  iii.  28 — 36.  "  Ye  yourselves  bear  me 
witness  that  I  said,  I  am  not  the  Christ,  butthat  I  am  sent 
before  him.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom  : 
but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which  standeth  and 
heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bride- 
groom's voice.  This  my  joy  therefore  is  fulfilled.  He 
must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease.  He  that  cometh 
from  above  is  above  all;  he  that  is  of  the  earth  is  earth- 
ly, and  speaketh  of  the  earth  ;  he  that  cometh  from 
heaven  is  above  all.  And  what  he  hath  seen  and  heard, 
that  he  testifieth,  and  no  man  receiveth  his  testimony. 
He  that  hath  received  his  testimony  hath  set  to  his  seal 
that  God  is  true.  For  he  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh 
the  words  of  God :  for  God  giveth  not  the  spirit  by 
measure  unto  him.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and 
hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand.  He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  life ;  and  he  that  believeth  not 
the  Son  shall  not  see  life  :  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on  him."  These  are  some  of  the  clear  and  evangelical 
sentiments  of  the  forerunner  of  Christ. 

Can  you  believe,  sir,  that  the  least  saint  at  this  day  in 
the  kingdom  of  God,  has  greater  and  more  correct  ideas 
of  Christ  and  his  kingdom,  than  John,  or  than  Isaiah,  for 
John  was  as  great  as  he  ? 

I  am,  &c. 


LETTER  X. 

Rev.  affd.  dear  Sir, 

In  your  eighteenth  letter  you  examine  my  arguments 
against  infant  baptism,  taken  from  ecclesiastical  history. 

I  had  said,  "no  mention  is  made  of  infant  baptism  in  the 
second  century,  unless  it  be  just  at  its  close."  In  reply  to 
this,  you  proceed  to  bring  forward  your  opposing  testi- 
mony. 

Your  first  witness  is  Justin  Martyr,  who,  you  say,  was 
about  forty  years  after  the  Apostles  ;  i.  e.  about  140  years 
from  the  birth  of  Christ.  The  passage,  which  you  have 
quoted  from  him,  was  not  written,  till  about  A.  D.  150,  so 
that  his  testimony  is  confined  to  the  last  half  of  the  second 
century.  But  let  us  hear  what  it  is  :  "  We  also  who  by 
him  have  had  access  to  God,  have  not  received  this  carnal 
circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision,  which  Enoch 


TO    THE    FOREGOING    LETTERS.  61 

and  others  like  him  observed.  And  we  have  received 
it  by  baptism.  And  it  is  enjoined  to  all  persons  to  receive 
it  in  the  same  way."  This  is  your  tirst  historic  proof. 
You  suppose  that  Justin  here  meant  to  teach,  that  baptism 
is  a  substitute  for  circumcision,  and  from  analogy  inferred 
the  right  to  apply  the  former  to  infants.  What  does  this 
father  mean  by  spiritcal  circumcision?  Certainly  the 
same  as  regeneration  b}''  the  Holy  Ghost,  because,  he  says 
it  -vas  received  by  Enoch  and  others  like  him,  who  were 
not  subjects  of  either  ordinance.  And  this  renovation  of 
soul,  he  says,  we  receive  by  baptism,  and  all  are  enjoined 
to  receive  it,  conversion,  the  same  way.  Now  will 
you  say  that  Justin  meant  by  the  word  «//,  to  include  in- 
fants, and  that  it  was  enjoined  upon  them  to  be  regenerated 
by  baptism,  ? 

Your  next  proof  from  this  father  is  in  these  words : 
*•  Many  persons  among  us  of  60  or  70  years  old,  of  both 
sexes,  who  were  discipled,  or  made  disciples,  in  their 
childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupted,  or  virgins."  If  these 
persons  continued  through  all  this  period  uncorrupted,  or 
virgins,  without  doubt  Justin  believed,  that  they  were 
puriiied,  or  converted  in  their  childhood.  What  evidence 
have  you,  sir,  that  this  purity,  which  they  preserved  for 
so  many  years,  was  nothing  more  than  an  outward,  or 
ceremonial  cleanness?  If  in  their  childhood  they  became 
the  disciples  of  Christ,  they  became  so  by  receiving  in- 
struction. You  have  exhibited  no  evidence,  and  we  pre- 
sume you  can  offer  no  argument,  to  show  titat  any  one  can 
be  made  a  disciple  without  instruction.  If  then  tiiese  chil- 
dren were  taught,  and  gave  evidence  that  they  were  re- 
generated, they  were  fit  subjects  for  baptism. 

You  next  quote  Irenasus  thus:  '•'  For  he  came  to  save 
all  persons  by  himself;  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  re- 
generated unto  God,  infants  and  little  ones  and  children 
an^  youths  and  elder  persons."  Wall  grants  that  he 
wrote  about  180  years  after  Christ.  This  passage  is  so 
generally  viewed  as  spurious,  that  it  is  entitled  to  no  au- 
thority in  this  debate.  If  you  wish  to  see  proofs  of  its 
spuriousness,  consult  Du  Pin,  Vol.  1,  pp.  67,  68,  and  71 
in  a  note.     Gale,  p.  464. 

But  if  it  were  genuine,  your  quotation  is  partial.  The 
whole  of  the  passage  is  this  :  Speaking  of  Christ,  he  says  : 
"sanctifying  every  age,  by  that  likeness  it  hath  to  him  ; 
for  he  came  to  save  all  by  himself;  all,  I  say,  who  by  him 
£ire  born  again  unto  God,  infants,  and  little  ones  and  chiK 


52 

dren,  and  young  men,  and  old  men ;  therefore  he  went 
through  every  age,  and  became  an  infant  to  infants,  sancti- 
fying infants  ;  and  to  little  ones,  a  little  one,  sanctifying 
those  of  that  age;  and  likewise  became  an  example  of 
piety,  righteousness  and  subjection."  Now  the  question 
is  about  the  word  renascuntur^  whether  it  is  to  be  render- 
ed horn  again,  \vhich  is  the  literal  sense  of  the  word,  or 
baptized.  That  it  does  not  mean  baptized^  is  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  this  regeneration  was  performed  by 
Christ.  "  Who  by  him,"  i.  e.  by  Christ,  are  born  again, 
&c.  But  Chrkt  baptized  none.  The  true  sense  of  Ire- 
nasus  seems  to  be  this,  that  Christ  came  to  save  all,  who 
are  renewed  by  his  power,  and  no  others  ;  and  that  by  as- 
suming human  nature,  and  passini,^  through  the  several 
stages  of  life,  he  has  sanctified  it,  and  set  an  example  to 
men  of  every  age.  Infant  baptism  is  not  mentioned  or 
fairly  implied  in  any  of  your  quotations.  How  then  could 
you  intimate  that  it  was  mentioned  in  the  former  part  of 
the  second  century  ?  Certainly,  sir,  you  must  be  hard 
pressed  indeed  to  rest  your  cause  for  the  two  first  centu- 
ries on  testimonies  so  conjectural,  and  which  do  not  even 
mention,  or  involve  the  pending  question. 

Your  next  author  is  Origen.  It  is  affirmed  by  those, 
who  have  access  to  the  original  Greek  of  this  father,  that 
nothing  can  be  found  in  his  writings,  that  favours  infant 
baptism.  The  quotations,  which  you  have  made  from 
him,  are  taken  from  the  corrupt  translations  of  his  works, 
by  Rufinus  and  St.  Hierom.  In  these  translations,  there 
are  such  changes,  omissions,  and  interpolations,  as  to  ruin 
iheir  authority  in  points  of  controversy.  Your  proofs 
from  this  source  will  not  be  admitted  as  having  any 
weight.  I  have  read  Wall,  Mosheim,  Du  Pin,  Gale  and 
others,  and  find  ample  proof  that  the  translations  of  the 
writings  of  Origen  are  challenged  as  too  corrupt  to  fur- 
nish any  ground  of  reliance. 

Your  next  proof  is  taken  from  the  famous  African  coun- 
cil of  66  bishops,  in  A.  D.  253.  As  the  result  of  this 
council  is  generally  produced  with  much  assurance,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  quote  it  entire.  The  result  is  sent 
to  one  Fidus,  who  could  not  tell  at  what  age  infants 
should  be  baptized.  He  could  find  no  law  in  the  Bible, 
"nor  any  examples  in  the  church,  to  solve  his  scruples. 
But  if  infant  baptism  had  been  in  use  from  the  days  of 
Christ,  and  supported  on  plain  scripture,  is  it  not  very 
strange  that  Fi(Jus  should  not  have  Iqarned  by  the  unin- 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  53 

terrupted  practice  of  the  church,  that  the  age  of  the  in- 
fant was  not  essential  as  it  respected  the  due  reception  of 
this  rite  ?  But  let  us  see  how  this  enlightened  council  re- 
lieve his  conscience.  "  As  for  the  matter  of  infants, 
whom  you  said  were  not  to  be  baptized  within  the  second 
or  third  day  after  their  nativity,  or  according  to  the  law 
of  circumcision  within  the  eighth  day  thereof ;  it  hath 
appeared  to  us,  in  our  council,  quite  contrary  ;  no  one 
maintaining  your  opinion ;  but  we  all  judged,  that  the 
mercy  and  grace  of  God  was  to  be  denied  to  no  man  ; 
for  since  the  Lord  said  in  the  gospel,  the  Son  of  Man  came 
not  to  destroy,  but  to  save  the  souls  of  men  ;  therefore  as 
much  as  lies  in  our  power,  no  soul  is  to  be  lost ;  for  what 
is  there  defective  in  him,  who  has  once  been  formed  in 
the  womb  by  the  hand  of  God  ?  To  us  indeed  it  seems 
that  children  increase  as  they  advance  in  years  ;  but  yet, 
whatever  things  are  made  by  God,  are  perfected  by 
the  v/ork  and  majesty  of  God,  their  Maker.  Besides,  the 
holy  scriptures  declare,  that  both  infants  and  adult  per- 
sons have  the  same  equality  in  the  divine  workmanship. 
When  Eiisha  prayed  over  the  dead  child  of  the  Shuma- 
nitish  widow,  he  lay  upon  the  child,  and  put  his  head  up- 
on his  head,  and  his  face  upon  his  face,  and  his  body  upon 
his  body,  and  his  feet  upon  his  i^eet  This  may  be  thought 
improbable,  how  the  small  members  of  an  infant  should 
equal  the  big  ones  of  a  gr.own  man ;  but  herein  is  ex- 
pressed the  divine  and  spiritual  equality,  that  all  men  are 
equal  and  alike  when  they  are  made  by  God  ;  that  though 
the  increase  of  our  bodies  may  cause  an  inequality  with 
respect  to  man,  yet  not  with  respect  to  God,  unless  that 
that  grace,  which  is  given  to  baptized  persons,  be  more 
or  less  according  to  the  age  of  the  receivers  ;  but  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  given  equally  to  all,  not  according  to  meas- 
ure, but  according  to  God's  mercy  and  indulgence  ;  for  as 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  so  neither  of  years  ;  he 
equally  offers  to  ail,  the  obtaining  of  his  heavenly  grace. 
And  whereas  you  say,  that  an  infant  for  the  first  days  after 
his  oirth  is  unclean,  so  that  every  one  is  afraid  to  kiss  him, 
this  can  be  no  impedimeuL  to  his  obtainment  of  heavenly 
grace  ;  for  it  is  written,  to  the  pure  all  things  are  pure, 
and  none  of  us  should  dread  that  which  God  hath  made  ; 
for  although  an  infant  be  newly  born,  y.et  he  is  not  so,  as 
that  we  should  dread  to  kiss  him  ;  since  in  the  kissing  of 
an  infant,  we  ought  to  think  upon  the  fresh  marks  of  God, 
O  2 


64  STRICTURES    ON   MR.   MOORE'S  ItEPLY 

which,  in  a  manner,  we  kiss  in  an  infant  newly  born,  when 
we  embrace  that  which  God  hath  made.  And  whereas 
the  carnal  Jewish  circumcision  was  performed  on  the 
eighth  day,  that  was  a  type  and  shadow  of  some  future 
good  thing,  which,  Christ  the  truth  being  now  come,  is 
done  away  ;  because  the  eighth  day,  or  the  first  day  af- 
ter the  Sabbath,  was  to  be  the  day  on  which  our  Lord 
should  rise  and  quicken  us,  and  give  us  the  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision, therefore  was  the  carnal  circumcision  on  the 
eighth  day,  which  type  is  now  abolished,  Christ  the  truth 
being  come,  and  having  given  us  the  spiritual  circumcis- 
ion. Wherefore  it  is  our  judgment,  that  no  one  ought  to 
be  debarred  from  God's  grace  by  that  law,  or  that  the 
spiritual  circumcision  should  be  hindered  by  the  carnal 
one  ;  but  all  men  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  grace  of 
Christ,  as  Peter  saith  in  the  Acts  of  the  apostles.  That 
the  Lord  said  unto  him,  that  he  should  call  no  man  com- 
mon or  unclean.  But  if  any  thing  can  hinder  men  from 
baptism,  it  wiilj^be  heinous  sins,  that  will  debar  the  adult 
and  mature  therefrom  ;  and  if  those  who  have  sinned  ex- 
tremely against  God,  yet  if  afterwards  they  believe, 
are  baptized,  and  no  man  is  prohibited  from  this  grace, 
how  much  more  ought  not  an  infant  to  be  prohibited,  who 
being  but  just  born,  is  guilty  of  no  sin  but  of  original, 
which  he  contracted  from  Adam  ?  Who  ought  the  more 
readily  to  be  received  to  the  remission  of  sins,  because 
not  his  ov/n,  but  other's  are  remitted  to  him.  Where- 
fore, dearly  beloved,  it  is  our  opinion,  that  from  baptism, 
and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful,  kind  and  benign  to 
all,  none  ought  to  be  prohibited  by  us,  which  as  it  is  to 
be  observed,  and  followed  with  respect  to  all ;  so  espec- 
ially with  respect  to  infants,  and  those  that  are  but  just 
born,  who  deserve  our  help,  and  the  divine  mercy,  be- 
cause at  the  first  instant  of  their  nativity  they  beg  it  by 
their  cries  and  tears." 

The  arguments  which  are  found  in  this  result,  are 
the  following  ;  1,  The  merciful  design  of  Christ's  ad- 
vent.    £',   Infants,  in  the  eye  of  God,  are  as  big  as  men. 

3,  Impartiality    of   God   in    his   offers   of  grace   to  all. 

4,  Ceremonial  cleanness  of  infants.  5,  Their  freedom 
from  actual  transgression.  6,  The  necessity  of  infant 
baptism.  And  to  close  this  climax  of  arguments,  infiants 
must  receive  this  rite,  because  they  come  into  the 
world  begging  and  crying  for  baptism.  But,  sir,  if  infant- 
baptism  had  been  the  universal  practice  of  the  church, 
why  did  this  9age  council  offer  so  many  sage  argunaeiats  in 


TO   TilK   FOREGOTNG   LETTERS.  55 

ita  support  ?  and  why  did  they  not  confirm  their  opinion 
respecting  the  time  of  baptism  by  pointing  Fidus  to  the 
universal  usage  of  the   ciiurch  ? 

You  farther  support  yourself  by  quotations  from 
Tertullian,  St.  Amorose,  St.  Cnrysostom,  St.  Austin, 
and  the  Pelagians.  These  men  you  have  introduc- 
ed, to  prove  the  opinions  and  practices  of  the  earliest 
days  of  the  christian  church.  But  unhappily  for 
yourself  you  have  ruined  the  reputation  of  your  own 
"witnesses.  In  p.  29th,  you  say,  '-  iJaptisteries  began 
to  be  built  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century,"  and 
that  *' it  is  well  kno.vn,  that  those,  who  built  and  used 
them,  were  exceedingly  corrupt  in  doctrine  and  in  prac- 
tice. It  is  very  extraordinary,  if  we  muat  iooii  to  them  to 
learn  primitive  and  apostolic  practice.''  And  m  p.  7a 
you  observe,  "  St.  Augustine  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
fourth,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century.  It  is 
well  known  that,  at  this  period,  great  innovations  had 
been  made  in  cnristian  doctrine  ;  that  great  corruption 
existed  in  the  christian  church  ;  and  jna/iy  additions  were 
made  to  the  christian  ordinances.  I  would  almost  as  soon 
look  into  almost  any  succeeding  period  of  the  church  for 
apostolic  faith,  practice  and  purity  of  the  church,  as  into 
the  fourtri  and  riftii  century.''  After  you  had  thus  free- 
ly expressed  your  surprise,  that  any  should  resort  to  this 
period,  so  exceedingly  corrupt  and  full  of  additions  and 
innovations,  it  is  much  more  extraordinary  that  you  should 
have  drawn  nearly  all  your  historic  support  for  infant 
baptism  from  this  very  corrupt  fountai.i  !  Se  ven  out  of 
nine  of  your  witnesses  are  taken  from  this  very  repudiat- 
ed source.  Tertullian  and  Origen  wrote  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  third  century;  Cyprian  in  A.  D.  252. 
Ambrose  in  374  ;  St.  Chrysostom  in  J3J  ;  St.  Austin  ia 
388,  Pelagius  in  415.  It  is  observaoie,  that  when  yoa 
cited  these  authors  in  proof  of  inlant  baptism,  you  reckon 
from  the  death  of  John  the  evangelist.  This  you  did  to 
give  weight  to  their  testimony.  But  when  you  wisned 
to  destroy  their  testimony  in  favor  of  infant  communion, 
you  reckon  from  the  birth  of  Christ.  Look  at  your  dif- 
ferent modes  of  expression  and  calculation.  ^'  St.  Austin, 
233  years  after  the  apostles,  says,  '•which  the  whole 
body  of  the  church  holds,  as  delivered  to  'ein  la  the  case 
of  little  infants  baptized."  Here  yoa  say,  288  years  after 
th3  apostles.  John  died,  according  to  the  best  chronoio- 
gists,  in  tlie  year  10  J,  after  the  christian  era  began  This 
100  years,   added  to  the  2SQ  years,   wiii  give  388,  the 


66  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORe's   REPLY 

period  in  which  Austin  began  to  write.  But  288  sounds 
quite  differently  from  388,  and  the  incautious  reader  is  in 
danger  of  overlooking  a  whole  century.  But  when  you 
had  a  different  object  in  view,  you  say,  "  St  Austin  lived 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  and  in  the  beginning  of  the 
fifth  century,"  a  period,  as  you  affirm,  of  great  innova- 
tions, corruptions  and  additions.  It  is  obvious,  that  3''0U 
wished  to  place  Austin,  so  far  from  the  birth  of  Christ,  and 
in  such  a  corrupt  age,  that  his  opinion  in  favour  of  infant 
communion  should  furnish  but  little  proof,  that  the  prac- 
tice was  apostolic.  But,  sir,  was  he  not  just  as  remote  from 
the  birth  of  Christy  and  in  precisely  the  same  corrupt  age^ 
when  you  quoted  him  in  support  of  pedohaptism  ?  It  is  curi- 
ous to  see  how  you  have  amused  yourself  with  mere 
sounds. 

You  reason  with  much  confidence  from  the  concessions 
of  the  Pelagians  in  favor  of  infant  baptism  ;  because  you 
suppose  that  Peiagias,  in  his  controversy  with  Austin, was 
strongly  tempted  to  deny  the  practice.  But  he  did  not 
feel  himself  so  very  much  pressed  with  the  argument  ia 
support  of  original  sin,  drawn  from  infant  baptism  ;  be- 
cause he  could  account  for  its  prevalence  on  different 
grounds.  The  Pelagians  held,  that  "  the  sins  of  our 
first  parents  were  imputed  to  them  alone,  and  not  to 
their  posterity  ;  that  we  derive  no  corruption  from  their 
fall,  but  are  born  as  pure,  and  unspotted,  as  Adam  came 
out  the  forming  hand  of  his  Creator.'-*  Pelagius,  in  his 
views  of  original  depravity,  resembled  very  much  mod- 
ern Arminians,  and,  like  them,  was  an  advocate  for  infant 
baptism,  not  to  wash  away  a  sinful  nature,  derived  from 
Adam.  He  maintained,  '•  that  infant  baptism  was  not  a 
sign  or  seal  of  the  remission  of  sins,  but  a  mark  of  admis- 
sion to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  was  only  open  to 
the  pure  in  heart. j 

In  page  75th  you  have  quoted  the  Pelagians  as  saying, 
•'  that  no  christian,  no,  not  even  any  sectary,  did  ever  de- 
ny it."  You  here,  without  doubt,  have  reference  to  the 
letter  of  Pelagius  to  pope  Innocent.  The  word  it^  in 
your  quotation,  you  suppose  refers  to  infant  baptism. 
Whether  it  refer  to  this  phrase,  or  to  the  promise  that 
some,  (meaning  infants  without  doubt)  could  be  saved 
without  the  redemption  of  Christ,  we  cheerfully  leave  to 
the  candid  reader  to  decide,  after  he  has  seen  the  original 

•  Mosheim,  vol.  ii.  p.  84.  f  Ibid,  p.  84. 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  57 

Latin  and  the  translation.  The  Latin  is  as  follows  :  "  Se 
ab  horninibus  infamari  quod  negat  parvulisbaptismi  sacra- 
mentum,  et  absque  redemptione  Christi  aliquibus  negna 
coelorum  promittat."  In  these  words,  Pelagias  com- 
plains of  two  slanders,  viz.  1,  Denying  hBLpiistn  to  infants  ; 
and,  2nd,  promising  them  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  without 
the  redemption  of  Christ.  To  both  of  which  he  replies, 
but  to  the  second  charge  he  answers  tirst,  and  says, 
*•  that  men  do  slander  him,  as  if  he  denied  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  to  infants,  and  did  promise  the  kingdom  of 
teaven  to  any  persons,  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ.*'  By  the  word,  aliquibus^  rendered  any  persons^ 
he  meant  infants,  because  no  one  ever  accused  Pelagius 
of  promising  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  adults,  without 
the  redemption  of  Christ.  But  as  he  denied  original  sin 
in  inlants,  his  antagonists  drew  for  him  the  inference, 
that  he  must  not  only  deny  infant  baptism,  but  also  prom- 
ise them  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  atonement,  be- 
cause, in  his  view,  they  had  no  sin  to  atone  for.  This 
slander  he  repels  by  saying,  "  Nunquam  se  vel  impium 
aliquem  hereticum  audisse,  qui  hoc^  quod  proposuit  de 
parvulis,  diceret.''^  Here  he  adirms  that  he  had  never 
heard,  no,  not  even  any  impious  heretic,  or  sectary,  who 
would  declare  or  promise,  hoc^  this  thing,  quod,  which, 
he  had  mentioned  of  infants,  (namely,  that  infants  could 
enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ.)  He  then  goes  on  to  express  his  surprise  that 
any  could  be  so  ignorant  of  the  gospel  as  to  declare  such 
a  thing,  or  even  entertain  such  a  thought.  The  reader 
will  observe  that  he  employs  the  singular  number;  but  if 
he  meant.in  these  words  to  reply  to  both  slanders,  why 
does  he  not  say,  which  are  things  that,  &c.  But  now  he 
uses  the  singular,  hoc,  this  things  referring,  as  I  believe,  to' 
the  nearest  slander,  or  to  the  one  last  mentioned.  That 
Austin  understood  Pelagius  as  replying  to  both  these  slan- 
ders separately,  and  to  the  second  hrst,  seems  evident 
from  his  own  animadversions  on  this  letter.  He  say?, 
'*  And  let  us  see  what  he  says  next.  After  reciting  that 
testimony  of  the  gospel,  that  '  Nisi  renatus  ex  aqua  et 
spiritu  sancto  regnum  coelorum  nuUus  possit  entrare.' 
None  can  enter  into  tlie  kingdom  of  heaven,  that  is  not 
born  again  of  water  and  the  holy  spirit :  about  which 
there  is  no  question  :  he  goes  on  and  says  :  "Who  is  there 
90  impious  as  to  refuse  to  an  infant  of  what  age  soever, 
the  common  redemption  of  mankind?"     The  very  struc- 


&8  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORe's    REPLY 

ture  of  this  period  intimates  that  Pelagius  intended  it  fov 
a  refutation  of  the  first  slander,  of  which  he  complained : 
viz.  that  he  denied  baptism  to  infants.  In  reply  to  the 
charge  he  quotes  the  passage,  which,  as  he  thought, 
proved  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  all  of  every  age  ;  and 
then  to  express  his  wonder  that  any  should  accuse  him  of 
denymg  this  to  infants,  he  asks,  '•'•  Who  is  there  so  impious, 
as  to  forbid  to  infants,"  baptism,  or  ''  the  common  re- 
demption of  mankind."  I  know,  sir,  that  Wall  supposes 
that  the  pronoun  hoc^  refers  to  infant  baptism ;  and  that 
Pelagius  meant  to  say  Ihat  he  never  heard  any  person, 
whether  Heretic  or  CathoHc,  deny  infant  baptism.  But 
did  he  mean  thus  ?  Did  not  both  he  and  Austin  know 
that  there  were  then  some,  who  denied  infant  baptism  ? 
Why  were  laws  made  to  enforce  infant  baptism,  if  there 
were  none  who  denied  it  ?  His  meaning  seems  to  have 
been,  as  Ivimey  says,  "  that  he  had  never  heard,  no,  not 
even  any  impious  heretic  or  sectary  say,  that  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  could  be  obtained  without  the  redemp- 
tion of  Christ."  This  passage,  when  correctly  under- 
stood, furnishes  no  proof  that  Pelagius,  whose  learning 
and  travels  are  much  extolled,  ever  did  say,  or  meant  to 
say,  "that  he  never  heard  any  one,  no,  not  even  an  im- 
pious heretic,  deny  infant  baptism."  This  main  pillar  in 
the  historic  proof  for  Pedobaptism  will  be  found,  when 
its  strength  is  fully  tried,  to  crumble  away,  and  afford  no 
support.'    See  Wall,  Part  I.  p.  209,  kc. 

The  controversy  between  Pelagius  and  Austin,  res- 
pected native  depravity,  and  not  infant  baptism.  The  lat- 
ter maintained  that  infants  should  be  baptized,  to  purge 
them  from  original  guilt,  while  the  former  plead  for  this 
rite,  because  they  were  pure.  When  all  this  is  duly  con- 
sidered, we  should  no  sooner  expect  that  Pelagius  would 
deny  infant  baptism,  than  that  he  would  reason  against 
his  own  faith  and  practice. 

Your  next  paragraph  has  given  us  much  surprise.  It 
contains  a  palpable  contradiction  against  yourself,  and  a 
flagrant  violation  of  historic  facts.  "  As  these  evidences 
are  for  the  first  four  hundred  years,  in  which  there  ap- 
pears to  be  only  one  man,  Tertullian,  that  advised  the 
delay  of  infant  baptism  in  some  cases,  and  one  Gregory, 
that  did,  perhaps,  practise  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his 
children ;  but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  prac- 
tising ;  nor  no  one  man  saying  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize 
infants  :  so  in  the  next  seven  hundred  year^^,  there  is  not 
so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  that  either  spoke  for,  or 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTBHS.  59 

practised  any  such  delay.  But  all  the  contrary."  Wall, 
Part  II.  pp.  367,  369."  That  this  quotation  is  exceed- 
ingly false,  will  appear  by  comparing  it  with  the  follow- 
ing* selections. 

"  Many  Pedobaptists,  it  is  well  known,  have  endeav- 
oured to  render  our  practice  odious,  by  exhibiting  in 
frightful  colours  the  conduct  of  some  German  Baptists 
in  the  sixteenth  century  ;  and  by  representing  our  distin- 
guishing sentiments  as  derived  from  those  obnoxious 
characters.  To  that  evidence,  therefore,  of  the  high  an- 
tiquity and  heavenly  origin  of  our  baptismal  practice, 
which  arises  from  the  concessions  and  reasonings  of  Pe- 
dobaptists, I  will  now  produce  two  testimonies  from 
among  many  of  our  learned  opposers,  more  directly  fitted 
to  free  us  from  all  suspicion  of  being  descended  from 
the  Munster  Baptists.  Thus,  for  example,  Venema,  af- 
ter assigning  various  reasons  against  considering  the  Men- 
nonites  as  descended  from  the  Baptists  at  Munster,  pro- 
ceeds :  '  The  nearest  origin  of  the  Mennonites,  in  my 
judgment,  is  better  derived  from  the  Waldenses,  and 
from  them  also  that  of  the  Anabaptists.  The  Mennon- 
ites desired  to  have  the  innocence  and  purity  of  the 
primitive  church  restored,  and  to  carry  on  the  Reforma- 
tion further  than  Luther  and  Calvin  intended.  Certain- 
ly the  Waldenses  held  the  principal  articles  of  religion 
almost  in  common  with  the  Mennonites.  They  have  so 
cleared  and  justified  themselves,  both  as  to  life  and  doc- 
trine, that  they  cannot  any  longer  be  confounded  with 
those  at  Munster,  without  notorious  injustice  and  signal 
injury.'  Such  is  the  language  of  this  impartial  historian. 
I  will  here  add  the  following  testimony  from  Cardinal 
i/o5iw5,  who  was  President  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  'The 
Anabaptists  are  a  pernicious  sect :  of  which  kind  the 
Waldensian  Brethren  seem  to  have  been.  Concerning 
whom  it  appears,  that  not  very  long  ago  they  r€baptized 
persons:  though  some  of  them  lately,  as  they  testify  in 
their  apology,  have  ceased  to  repeat  baptism.  Certain 
it  is,  however,  that  in  many  things  they  agree  with  the 
Anabaptists  :  nor  is  this  heresy  a  modern  thing  ;  for  it 
existed  in  the  i'yme  of  Austin  !^  Thus  it  appears  that  these 
eminent  authors  consider  the  Baptists  as  deriving  their 
pedigree,  not  from  the  Munster  enthusiasts,  but  from  the 
Waldensian  confessors;  which  is  a  line  of  descent  that  wc 
j{r^  not  ashamed  to  own."     Booth,  p.  296,  &c. 


60 

"  The  true  origin  of  that  sect,  which  acquired  the  de- 
nomination of  Anabaptists,  by  their  administering  anew 
the  rite  of  baptism  to  those,  who  came  over  to  their 
communion,  and  derived  that  of  Mennonites  from  the  fa- 
mous man,  to  whom  they  owe  the  greatest  part  of  their 
present  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  remotest  depths  of  antiquity^ 
and  is  of  consequence  extremely  difficult  to  be  ascertain- 
ed. The  modern  Mennonites  not  only  consider  them- 
selves as  the  descendants  of  the  Waldenses  who  were  so 
grievously  oppressed  and  persecuted  by  the  despotic 
heads  of  the  Reman  church ;  but  pretend,  moreover, 
to  be  the  purest  offspring  of  these  respectable  sufferers ; 
being  equally  averse  to  all  principles  of  rebellion  on  the 
one  hand,  and  all  suggestions  of  fanaticism  on  the  other.'* 
"  Their  adversaries^  on  the  contrary,  represent  them  as 
the  descendants  of  those  turbulent  and  furious  Anabap- 
tists, who,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  involved  Germanjv 
Holland,  Switzerland,  and  more  especially  the  province 
of  Westphalia,  in  such  scenes  of  blood,  perplexity  and 
distress.'' 

"  After  having  examined  these  two  different  accounts, 
of  the  origin  of  the  Anabaptists  with  the  utmost  attention 
and  impartiality,  I  have  found  that  neither  of  them  is  ex- 
actly conformable  to  truth."  "  It  may  be  observed  in 
the  first  place,  that  the  Mennonites,  (or  Baptists)  are 
not  entirely  mistaken  when  they  boast  of  their  descent 
from  the  Waldenses^  Petrobrussians^  and  other  ancient 
sects,  who  are  usually  considered  as  witnesses  of  the  truth 
in  times  of  iiniversal  darkness  and  superstition.  Before 
the  rise  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  there  lay  concealed  in  al- 
most all  the  countries  of  Europe,  particularly  in  Bohemia^ 
Moravia,  Switzerland,  and  Germany,  many  persons,  who 
adhered  tenaciously  to  the  following  doctrine,  which  the 
Waldenses,  Wickiiffites,  and  Hussites  had  maintained, 
some  in  a  more  disguised,  and  some  in  a  more  open  man- 
ner, viz.  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  the  visible 
church  he  had  established  upon  earth,  was  an  assembly 
of  true  and  real  saints,  and  ought,  therefore,  to  be  inacces- 
sible to  the  wicked  and  unrightoous,  and  also  exempt 
from  all  those  institutions,  which  human  prudence  sug- 
gests, to  oppose  the  progress  of  iniquity,  or  to  correct 
and  reform  transgressors.  This  n(axim  is  the  true 
source  of  all  the  peculiarities  that  are  to  be  found  in  the 
TeVigions  doctrine  and  discipline  of  Qx^  Mennonites,''''  Mosh. 
vol.  4. 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  61 

'•  If  there  were  none  who  opposed  infant  baptism  from 
the  fourth  to  the  eleventh  century,  how  shall  we  ac- 
count for  the  repeated  decrees  of  councils  during  this  pe- 
riod, against  such  opposers  ?  One  article  of  the  council 
of  Mela,  held  in  the  fifth  century,  is  in  the  following 
words  :  "  Also  it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  bishops  to  order, 
that  whosoever  denieth  that  infants  newly  born  of  their 
mothers  are  to  be  baptized  ;  or  saith  that  baptism  is  ad- 
ministered for  the  remission  of  their  own  sins,  but  not  on 
account  of  original  sin,  derived  from  Adam,  and  to  be  ex- 
piated by  the  laver  of  regeneration,  be  (anathema)  curs- 
ed !"  The  first  part  of  this  decree  clearly  supposes  that 
some  denied  that  infants  newly  born  were  to  be  baptiz- 
ed. And  the  latter,  that  others,  as  the  Pelagians,  denied 
that  baptism  could  wash  away  original  sin.  Again,  in  the 
sixth  century,  by  the  council  of  L^rida,  in  the  archbish- 
oprick  of  Tarragona,  it  was  decreed,  "  that  such  as  had 
fallen  into  the  prevarication  of  anabaptism^  if  they  should 
return  to  the  church,  should  be  received  as  the  council 
of  Nice  had  enacted."  Indeed  the  first  ecclesiastical  ca- 
non in  Europe  for  the  baptism  of  babes,  I  believe  was 
passed  in  the  y^ar  514,  by  a  council  composed  of  a  few 
Spanish  bishops,  "  who  met  at  Girona  in  Catalonia,  and 
framed  and  subscribed  ten  rules  of  discipline."  The 
fourth  is  "  an  agreement  to  baptize  catechumens  only  at 
Easter  and  Pentecqst,  except  in  cases  of  sickness."  In 
the  fifth,  they  agreed,  "  in  case  infants  were  ill,  and 
would  not  suck  their  mother's  milk,  if  they  were  offered, 
to  baptize  them,  even  though  it  were  the  day  they  were 
born."  This  agreement  was  binding  only  on  such  as  as 
sented  to  it. 

''  But  Gharlemagne  carried  the  subject  still  further,  and 
in  A.  D.  789,  passed  a  law  to  compel  his  subjects,  on  pain 
of  death,  to  be  baptized  themselves  !  And  ••  by  heavy 
fines  obliged  them  to  baptize  their  children  within  the 
year  of  their  birth." 

"  It  is  abundantly  evident,  that  many  persons  who  were 
born  of  christian  parents,  and  educated  in  the  christian 
faith,  were  not  baptized  until  they  came  to  adult  years, 
and  made  a  personal  profession.  Helena,  tlie  mother  of 
Constantino,  was  a  very  devout  and  zealous  Christian, 
yet  he  was  not  baptized  upon  her  faith.  Nor  did  he  ded- 
icate his  own  children  to  God  in  baptism,  by  virtue  of  his 
faith.  For  we  are  informed  by  Socrates,  that  his  son 
Constantius,  who  succeeded  his  father  in  the  empire,  was 
P 


02  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORe's    REPLY 

baptized  by  Euzoius  when  he  was  preparing  for  his  ex- 
pedition against  Julianus,  and  immediately  after  ended 
his  life  at  Mopsucrenia,  twenty-five  years  after  the  death 
of  his  father.     Eccl.  History,  lib.  ii.  chap.  47. 

"  Basil,  son  of  Basil,  bishop  of  Nicene,  was  baptized  in 
.Tordan  when  far  advanced  in  years. 

"Gregory  the  great,  the  son  of  Gregory,  bishop  of  ISTa- 
zianzen,  was  born  while  his  father  was  bishop,  and  yet 
not  baptized  until  he  was  twenty,  some  say  thirty  years 
©Id.  See  Osiander's  Book,  Cent.  iv.  1.  3,  and  Robinson's 
History,  p.  250. 

"  Grotius  says,  that  Chrysostom  was  born  of  believing 
parents,  and  was  educated  by  Melitius,  a  bishop,  yet  not 
baptized  till  the  age  of  twenty-one."  Dr.  Baldwin  on 
Baptism,  p.  97. 

Cardinal  Hosius,  president  of  the  council  of  Trent.  "  If 
the  truth  of  religion  were  to  be  judged  of  by  the  readi- 
ness and  cheerfulness,  which  a  man  of  any  sect  shows  in 
suffering,  then  the  opinion  and  persuasion  of  no  sect  can 
be  truer  or  surer,  than  that  of  the  Anabaptists  ;  since 
there  have  been  none,  for  these  twelve  hundred  years 
past,  that  have  been  more  grievously  punished,  or  that 
have  more  cheerfully  and  steadfastly  undergone,  and 
even  offered  themselves  to,  the  most  cruel  sorts  of  pun- 
isment,  than  these  people.  Nor  is  this  heresy  a  modern 
thing  ;  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Austin,."     Judson,  p.  61. 

In  view  of  these  quotations,  the  reader  will  judge  how^ 
much  credit  is  due  to  your  assertion,  that  for  1100 
years,  only  two  Baptists  can  be  found. 

In  p.  75th,  3^ou  remark,  that  I  have  "  not  given  St. 
Austin's  authority  in  the  case,"  i.  e.  of  infant  communion. 
"  He  has  made  no  quotation  from  him.  He  has  only  given 
us  Chillingwortirs  opinion  of  his  opinion,  respecting  the 
communicating  of  infants  ;  and  this  he  takes  from  Jud- 
son. The  amount  of  this  authority  is  this.  Mr.  C,  says, 
that  Judson  says,  that  Chillingvvorth  says,  that  he  is  sure 
that  St.  Austin  held  the  communicating  of  infants  as  much 
apostolic  tradition,  as  the  baptizing  them."  It  would  be 
easy,  sir,  to  retort  :  "  Mr.  Moore  says.,  that  Wall  says^ 
that  Austin  5az/5,  '  It  is  reasonably  believed  that  infant 
baptism  was  apostolic/''  411  therefore  that  Austin  and  oth- 
ers have  said  on  this  subject,  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  opinion.,  or  belief  and  supposition. 

But,  sir,  did  I  not  quote  Austin  in  the  case  ?  How  then 
did  it  come  to  pass,  that  you,  within  a  few  lines,  should 


TO    THE    FOREGOING    LETTERS.  63 

say,  "  Mr.  C.  quotes  St.  Austin  to  the  follow  ng  effect, 
that  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  are  necessary  for  the 
salvation  of  infants ."  As  you  have  thus  early  corrected 
yourself,  I  have  nothing  further  to  say  respecting  your 
mistake. 

In  another  place  you  quote  Austin  thus  :  "  Which  the 
whole  body  of  the  church  holds  as  delivered  to  'em  in 
the  case  of  little  infants  baptized." 

If  infant  baptism  was  ever  in  use  and  practised  by  the 
whole  church,  how  did  it  happen,  that  Austin  was  not 
baptized  till  about  30  years  old  ?  "  Had  he,  who  pre- 
tended he  had  been  a  Manichean,  never  heard  they  did 
not  baptize  infants  ?  Had  all  other  heretics  escaped  his 
notice  ?  Had  he  forgot  himself  when  he  taxed  the  Pela- 
gians with  denying  inlant  baptism,  and  when  he  com- 
plained in  another  book  of  people  who  opposed  it  ?" 
Robinson,  p.  202. 

You  wish  your  reader  to  compare  the  testimony  of 
Austin  in  favor  of  infant  communion  with  the  testimony  of 
Justin  Martyr  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  Speaking  of 
baptism,  he  says,  '  it  is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  it  in  the 
same  way.'  Justin,  in  the  passage  to  which  you  allude, 
was  not  speaking,  as  3'ou  say,  of  baptism,  but  of  spiritual 
circumcision.  Speaking  of  this,  he  says,  '  It  is  enjoined 
on  all  to  receive  i/,  i.  e.  spiritual  circumcision,  or  regen- 
eration by  the  same  way,  i.  e.  by  baptism.'  But  you  refer 
the  word  it  to  water  baptism,  and  so  according  to  your 
criticism,  Justin  reasons  in  this  tautological  manner;  "  It 
is  enjoined  on  all  to  receive  water  baptism  by  receiving 
Zi-atcr  baptism  .'" 

You  next  attempt  to  show  that  my  quotation  from 
Basil,  archbishop  of  Cesarea,  proves  nothing  against  the 
prevalence  of  infant  baptism.  After  we  have  quoted  the 
passage  and  the  reply,  the  reader  will  be  prepared  to 
make  his  own  comments  on  your  candor  and  promised 
care,  not  to  misrepresent.  The  words  of  Basil  are  : 
'•  What  time  for  baptism  so  proper  as  Easter  ?  For  this 
the  church  lifts  up  her  voice,  and  calls  from  far  her  sons, 
that  those,  whom  she  once  brought  forth,  she  may  now 
bring  forth  again  ;  and  feed  with  substantial  food,  them 
whom  she  hath  hitherto  fed  with  the  milk  of  the  first  el- 
ements of  religion.  To  you,  (i,  e.  the  children  of  pro- 
fessors, who  were  the  candidates  for  baptism)  the  Apostle 
says,  repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you — Why  do 
you  delay  ?    Why  do  you  deliberate  ?    What  do  you  wait 


64  STRICTURES   ON   MR.    MOORE's   REPLY 

for  ?  Instructed  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ  from  your  in- 
fancy, are  you  not  yet  acquainted  with  it  ?  Will  you  con- 
tinue your  trials  to  old  age  ?  Last  year  you  deferred  it 
till  this  ;  do  you  now  intend  to  put  it  off,  (baptism)  till 
the  next?*'  That  these  were  the  children  of  professors 
and  not  of  pagans,  cannot  be  doubted.  They  are  said  to 
be  those,  whom  the  church  once  brought  forth,  and  had 
fed  with  the  milk  of  the  first  elements  of  religion,  and 
had  instructed  them  from  their  infancy.  And  for  their 
repentance,  faith  and  baptism,  the  church  lifted  her  voice 
and  called  from  far  her  sons.  And  the  bishop  plied  these 
children  with  various  arguments  to  persuade  them  to 
come  to  the  laver  of  baptism. 

To  all  this  you  reply,  "  In  this  quotation,  he,  the  bish- 
op, upbraids  his  audience  for  their  neglect  of  baptism  ; 
and  exhorts  them  to  receive  it.  But  this  proves  nothing 
against  the  general  or  even  uni-versal  practice  of  the  bap- 
tism of  believers'  children.  Did  Mr.  C.  never  exhort  his 
people  to  attend  upon  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  re- 
prove them  for  their  too  great  neglect  of  it  ?  Would  he  in- 
fer from  his  own  preaching  that  infant  baptism  was  not  the 
general  practice  among  his  people  ?  Or  that  it  was  not  gen- 
erally considered  established  on  divine  authority  ?  As  well 
might  he  infer  this,  as  make  his  inference  against  the  prev- 
alence of  infant  baptism  from  the  exhortations  of  Basil." 

You  would  make  your  readers  believe  that  in  my  quo- 
tation, Basil  upbraided  the  parents  in  his  auditory  for 
their  neglect  to  attend  upon  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
while  directly  the  reverse  of  all  this  was  true.  Instead 
of  upbraiding  professors  for  neglecting  this  rite,  he  rep- 
resents them  as  crying  aloud  that  it  might  be  performed 
on  their  repenting  children  ;  and  confines  his  upbraidings 
to  the  c/iiZc?ren  of  believing  parents.  These  c^i'Wreri  he 
blames  for  delaying  their  baptism,  seeing  they  had  been 
taught  from  their  infancy  the  doctrines  of  Christ ;  and 
seeing  their  parents  were  then  lifting  up  their  voice  in 
prayer  that  they  might  come  to  their  duty.  If  a  minister 
should  address  in  the  same  way  the  children^  not  the  par- 
ents in  your  church,  and  exhort  them  to  come  to  baptism, 
on  the  ground  of  their  own  faith,  and  so  gratify  the  ar- 
dent desires  of  their  parents,  would  not  this  be  decisive 
proof  that  they  were  not  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  their 
infants  ? 

The  history  of  catechumens  furnishes  strong  proof 
against  the  antiquity   of  infant  baptism.      Catechumens 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  65 

were  the  lowest  order  of  christians  in  the  primitive 
church.  They  had  some  title  to  the  common  name 
of  christians,  being  a  degree  above  pagans,  and  not  her- 
iticks,  though  not  consummated  by  baptism.  Among  this 
class  none  were  admitted,  who  had  been  washed  in  the 
sacred  laver.  But  Mr.  Buck  and  the  Cyclopedia  tell  us 
that,  '^  The  children  of  ancient  believing  parents  were 
admitted  catechumens^  as  soon  as  they  were  capable  of  in- 
struction. But  at  what  age  those  of  heathen  parents 
might  be  admitted  is  not  so  clear."  See  Buck^s  Theol. 
Diet.  After  these  children  of  believers  had  passed 
through  several  stages  of  instruction,  and  had  a  com- 
petency of  knowledge  and  faith,  they  were  scrutinized, 
or  examined  in  the  strictest  manner,  and  then  with  various 
ceremonies  they  were  admitted  to  baptism  on  the  ground 
of  their  faith  and  confession.  But  if  believing  parents  did 
in  the  primitive  church,  baptize  all  their  children  in  m^ 
fancy,  why  did  they  send  them  to  the  school  of  the  cate- 
chumens to  receive  that  education,  which  was  to  qualify 
them  for  that  ordinance  ?  ^ 

You  wonder  why  I  did  not  trace  infant  communion  as  far 
back,  as  you  have  infant  baptism.  You  insinuate,  that  if  I 
had  made  the  attempt,  I  should  have  found  a  hard  task.  You 
may  rest  assured,  sir,  that  we  can,  with  ease,  trace  infant 
communion  even  higher^  than  you  have  infant  baptism.  For 
the  lirst  two  centuries  you  have  brought  no  evidence  for  in- 
fant baptism.  Your  proofs  from  Origen,  if  they  were  gen- 
uine, carry  you  no  farther  than  the  early  part  of  the  third 
century. 

Dr.  John  Edwards  says,  "  Infant  communicating  was 
a  catholic  doctrine.  Herein  all  the  fathers  agreed. 
They,  misunderstanding  and  misapplying  Christ's  words, 
.John  vi.  53,  held  that  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper 
was  to  be  administered  to  infants  and  children,  and  that  it 
was  necessary  for  their  salvation  ;  accordingly  they  made 
them  partakers  of  that  ordinance."  Booth  286.  Venema 
says,  ''in  the  ancient  church,  those  two  sacraments,  in  re- 
spect of  the  subjects^  were  never  separated  the  one  from 
the   other." 

Buddoeus.  '•  It  is  manifest,  that  in  the  ancient  church, 
it  was  usual  to  give  the  eucharist  to  infants,  which  cus- 
tom arose  about  the  third  century."     Judson,  p.  67. 

The  history  of  the  church,  written  by  an  impartial 
hand,  says,  "  In  the  time  of  Cyprian  (254)  it  was  usual  for 


66  STRICTURES    ON    MR.    MOORe's   REPLY 

children  and  sucking  infants  to  receive  the  sacrament. 
And  therefore  when  a  little  sucking  girl  refused  to  taste 
the  sacramental  wine,  the  deacon  violently  force  d  it  down 
her  throat."     Page  112. 

From  these  testimonies  we  trust  that  you  will  admit 
thai  we  have  shown  infant  communion  ohtained  as  early, 
and  was  as  extensive  as  infant  baptism. 

If  intant  baptism  be  inferred  from  infant  circumcision, 
hence  consistency  requires  that  infant  communion  should 
be  deduced  from  the  communicating  of  children  at  the 
paschal  feast.  This  inference  you  deny  ;  because,  say 
you,  Jewish  children  did  not  partake  of  the  passover,  till 
they  were  12  years  old.  In  proof  of  this,  you  adduce 
Luke  ii.  41,  42.  "And  when  he  was  twelve  years  old 
they  went  up  to  Jerusalem  after  the  custom  of  the  feast." 
If  your  exposition  of  this  text  were  true,  it  would  not 
prove  but  what  children  partook  at  its  institution,  and  ever 
after,  till  it  was  located  at  Jerusalem.  After  this  location 
they  were  not  prohibited,  but  admitted,  whenever  their 
parents  took  pains  to  bring  them  to  the  ordinance.  That 
children  did  partake  is  evident  from  Exodus  xii.  3,  4. 
Mr.  Scott  says,  "•  Every  person  in  each  household,  in- 
cluding women  and  children^  ate  this  first  passover. — The 
women  and  children  were  not  indeed  commanded  to  go  up 
to  the  tabernacle — but  when  they  did,  they  joined  in  this 
sacred  feast."     See  him  on  Exo.  xii.  43 — 45. 

Says  Witsius,  "  In  those  companies"  (that  partook  of  the 
passover)  "  men  and  women  sat  down  together,  old  men 
and  young,  whole  and  sick,  masters  and  servants,  in  fine, 
every  Jew  that  could  eat  a  morsel  of  flesh,  not  excluding 
even  young  children.''^  See  (Econ.  Foed,  L.  4,  Chap.  9th. 
§14. 

We  never  supposed,  that  infants  at  the  breast  ate  of 
the  passover.  But  they  were  brought  to  partake  as  early 
as  their  physical  inability  was  removed. 

"  If  Mr.  C."  say  you,  ''were  commanded  to  make  pro- 
vision for  his  family  for  a  single  meal,  (and  of  meat  too) 
according  to  the  number  of  the  souls  of  his  household,  ac- 
cording to  their  eating,  would  he  count  his  infant,  who 
lays  cradled  in  his  mother's  arms,  or  would  he  provide 
more  or  less  on  its  account  ?"  In  our  turn  we  ask  you, 
sir.  If  you  were  commanded  to  make  provision  for  your 
family,  for  a  single  meal,  and  of  meat  too,  according  to  the 
number  of  the  souls  of  your  household,  according  to  thei? 
eatings  would  you  leave  out  of  your  calculation  all  your 


TO  THE  FOREGOING  LETTERS.  67 

children  under  twelve  years  old  ?  or  would  you  provide 
more  or  less  on  their  account?  All  this  number  you  sup 
pose  the  Jews  left  out  in  their  preparations  for  the  pass- 
over.  But  all  above,  they  brought  to  this  feast.  Why 
then  do  you  not  imitate  this  Jewish  example,  and  bring 
to  the  Lord's  table  all  your  sprinkled  children,  above  this 
specified  age  ;  seeing  you  have  told  us, ''  the  Apostles,  as 
they  had  not  been  commanded  to  the  contrary,  would 
bring  the  same  subjects  under  the  christian  religion,  which 
they  had  been  accustomed- to  bring  under  the  Jewish  re- 
ligion." 

To  be  consistent  with  yourself,  you  must  retain  both 
infant  communion  and  sprinkling,  or  reject  both.  Pierce, 
the  champion  for  infant  communion,  says,  "  While  there- 
fore the  title  of  infants  to  baptism  is  loudly  pleaded,  but 
their  access  to  the  Lord's  table  utterly  denied,  it  is  nat- 
ural for  us  to  conclude,  the  conduct  of  our  brethren,  in 
this  respect,  is  not  reconcilable  to  the  necessary  conse- 
quences of  their  own  principles.  No  :  for  it  does  appear 
that  infant  baptism  and  infant  cofnmuoion  are  twin  sisters  ; 
they  were  adopted  and  cherished  as  such  by  their  ancient 
advocates  through  a  course  of  ages  ;  that  they  are  now 
fostered,  as  bearing  that  strict  relation,  one  to  the  other, 
by  half  the  christian  world,  (the  Greek  church.)  Are  not 
the  same  reasons,  which  are  brought  for  infant  baptism, 
in  the  like  manner  applicable  to  infant  communion  ?  \nd 
will  not  the  objections  against  the  latter,  admit  the  same 
answer  as  those  against  the  former  ?  Nor  do  I  see  how 
this  reasoning  can  be  evaded,  by  a  consistent  Pedobaptist. 
Consequently,  they  should  either  lire  together,  and  be 
supported,  or  die  of  the  same  disease,  and  be  discarded  at 
once  and  on  equal  grounds."  Pierce  and  Williams,  as 
quoted  by  Booth,  pp.  286,  288,  299. 


I  have  now,  dear  sir,  closed  my  Strictures  on  your  Reply.  I 
retire  without  any  consciousness  of  retainitig  any  of  those  unhal- 
lowed  feelings,  which  may  have  been  excited  by  collisions  in  the 
rugged  field  of  controversy  All  that  is  reprehensible  in  your 
Lrlters,  I  can  heartily  forgive  :  '\n(i  I  hope  to  be  made  duly 
sensible  for  all  instances  in  which  I  may  have  disclosed  an  un- 
christian spirit,  or  have  trespassed  the  settled  laws  of  fa;r  dispu- 
tation. 


68  CONCLUSION,   &c. 

It  only  remains  that  I  should  leave  my  work  with  alMts  im- 
perfections before  the  tribunal  of  an  impartial  publick,  and  irn* 
ploie  upon  it  the  blessing  of  that  God,  who  can  employ  every 
event  in  hastening"  the  completion  of  all  his  counsels  of  mercy. 
You  and  I  are  rapidly  moving  on  to  the  unknown  world,  and  must 
shortly  appear  at  the  bar  of  our  common  Jtidge.  The  reckoning 
day  I  anticipate  with  the  combined  emotions  of  hope  and  fear. 
We  shall  then  be  weighed  in  the  balance  of  eternal  truth.  If 
while  passing  through  this  state  of  sorrow,  we  must  be  separated 
both  by  space  and  sentiment,  let  it  be  our  steady  and  fervent 
prayer  that  we  may  live  in  such  manner,  that  we  may  meet  be- 
fore the  throne  of  the  Lamb,  where  our  only  emulation  will  be, 
who  shall  shout  the  highest  note  of  praise. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  yours  in  sentiments 
of  esteem  and  affection. 

Rev.  H.  MooRE.  STEPHEN  CHAPIN. 

North  Yarmouth,  {Me.) 
March  1,  1820.  ^ 


Errata. 

Page  48,  for  n^nn,  read  TW 
„     6?.  8th  lii.e  from  bottom,  for  ?Ae,  read  their. 
„     66,  for  affusion.^  read  effusion. 
,,     7^y  18lh  line  from  bottom,  dele  of. 
„     90,  line  1st,  dele  the. 

Appendix. 
Page  12,  line  26th,  for  observes.,  read  observe. 

„     14,  line  9th.  dele  the7n  into  ; — next  line,  for  to  read  unto. 
„     22,  Letter  VII,  to  be  noted  Letter  [VII.] 
„     30,  for  M*s  read  M 
,,     35,  line  5th,  for  enforced,  re&d. inferred. 
„     37,  llr.c  llth,  fo.  of,  read  luith. 
■     „    39,  after  the  word  /ooy^,  in  the  last  line,  add  the  words,  h 
thai. 


^^ 


v^ 


■■^< 


